Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fishing

Sheryll Murray: What steps his Department is taking to support the Welsh fishing sector.

Simon Hart: Our commitment to this country’s fishing industry is absolute, and we have defended it resolutely in our negotiations with the European Union. We promised fishermen in Wales, Cornwall and across the United Kingdom that we would take back control of our waters, and that is precisely what will happen.

Sheryll Murray: Welsh fishermen have said to me how important it is that we take back control of our waters and do not give away access in any trade deal with the EU. Does my right hon. Friend back them in that goal?

Simon Hart: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fishing industry made its views absolutely clear back in 2016, as did 55% of the Welsh nation. UK sovereignty over fishing in UK waters is not up for discussion.

Transition Period: Business

Fay Jones: What steps his Department is taking to help Welsh businesses prepare for the end of the transition period.

Simon Hart: The Wales Office is engaged with businesses the length and breadth of Wales, with a simple message: “Make sure you are prepared for the end of the transition period, whether or not we reach a negotiated outcome with the EU.”

Fay Jones: When I was speaking to sheep farmers in Builth Wells in my constituency at the weekend, they made it clear that they do not want to be a political  football. They are keen to embrace the changes that will come, but they want the certainty that their Government will support them come what may. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is working closely with all Cabinet colleagues to ensure that my sheep farmers are front and centre of the UK Government’s mind when transition ends?

Simon Hart: Not only my hon. Friend’s sheep farmers but sheep farmers in constituencies across the House can feel confident that the Government are on their side. One way we can demonstrate that is the fact that we have guaranteed the £337 million of funding across the lifetime of this Parliament. People said we would not do it, but we have done it, and we are committed to ensuring that there is a healthy future for the farming industry, particularly livestock in Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: With the first of two questions, Liz Saville Roberts. Happy birthday!

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. It was interesting to hear the reference made to Welsh fishing previously, but I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that 90% of the Welsh fleet is made up of small boats, under 10 metres in length, which catch shellfish and non-quota fish species such as bass. Between the prospect of no-deal tariffs to their markets in Europe and the covid closure of hospitality, fishermen such as those in Porthdinllaen near where I live see no Brexit bonanza on the horizon. As Nelson might have put it, “Wales expects that every Secretary of State for Wales will do his duty.” Can the Secretary of State explain how his Government’s vainglorious Trafalgar posturing with warships in the channel helps our small fishing vessels?

Simon Hart: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments. I was rather hopeful that leaving the common fisheries policy and regaining our status as an independent nation state might be something that would appeal to a separatist, but sadly that does not appear to be the case. I can answer her question, perhaps, by referring her to the inclusion in the spending review of £2 million-worth of support for fisheries in Wales in 2021-22 and for the lifetime of this Parliament. We share a common theme, in the sense that I too have those fishing interests off the coast of west Wales and I am very conscious of the problems she raises. That is why we are determined to ensure that they are properly looked after.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that there is a consultation going on about how to allocate fishing quotas in the future. If that is done on historical grounds for Wales, it will be very bad news indeed for our fishermen. Turning to the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, it will give a modicum of flexibility to the devolved nations, but it is undeniable that the Bill is a disaster, weakening devolved power and centralising more power here in Westminster. The Conservatives and Labour have been working together this week to let efforts to give our devolved Governments a say in state aid fail. Will the Secretary of State commit to a productive U-turn this time, and assure me that no other powers will be reserved through the internal market Bill?

Simon Hart: The fact that the Government have listened carefully to the arguments should not be deemed some kind of act of evil or a U-turn. It shows that we are conscious of the complexities of this legislation and have listened carefully to the arguments. Where the right hon. Lady makes a mistake is in thinking that the contents of the UK Internal Market Bill are somehow a threat to devolution. Actually, they are a means by which we can encourage inward investment into Wales and encourage jobs and livelihoods. We have had this exchange across the House before, and it strikes me as worrying that she always refers to power—it is all about power to Cardiff, rather than jobs and livelihoods in Wales. For a party that argues it is the party of Wales, it seems to be remarkably out of touch with the people of Wales.

Stephen Crabb: One of the findings of our Select Committee report last week on this issue was that the Government have really stepped up their communication with Welsh businesses ahead of the end of the transition period, which is very welcome. The new money that the Government have announced for Welsh ports, including Fishguard in my own constituency, is very welcome too, but will my right hon. Friend say a bit more about what he is doing with the Welsh Government to ensure that the inland checking facilities that will be required ahead of the full implementation of new border checks will be in place, given the very challenging timetables that he is working to?

Simon Hart: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Of course, the devolution settlement poses its own complexities. With Holyhead, we have a Welsh Government-UK Government-HMRC relationship that needs to be managed as we progress towards the end of the transition period, but Fishguard and Pembroke on the coast of west Wales, in the areas we represent, are entirely in the gift of the Welsh Government. However, we have tried to ensure that we work almost on a daily basis with the Welsh Government to ensure that those delivery timetables and objectives are in place.

Gerald Jones: The Government’s failure to get the Brexit deal that they promised means we still have no clue about the terms on which businesses will be trading from January, and we face the very real prospect of a no-deal exit, risking chaos at our ports and shortages of critical goods. As the CBI and others have said all year, businesses cannot be expected to prepare for a no deal Brexit in  the middle of a pandemic, so what is the Secretary of State’s message to those Welsh businesses that now face a Brexit cliff edge in just a few days’ time?

Simon Hart: I have been working closely with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in Cardiff, hosting joint webinars and seminars. We are also engaging with businesses across Wales in limitless number of ways, and the message I am getting from them is not the same as the message that he has just delivered to the House. They are, by and large, prepared. They are certainly aware of the challenges, but also of the opportunities that this process throws up for them. I would also make the point that, right from the start of this, the hon. Gentleman’s party was saying that there would not be a manifesto commitment about a referendum, but there was, and  that there would not be a referendum, but there was. They said that the leave camp would lose the referendum, but it did not. Then they said there would not be a withdrawal agreement, but there was. They said that the Conservatives would not win the election, but they did. Now he is saying there will not be a deal; I think we should wait and see.

Anna McMorrin: I have been speaking to businesses across Cardiff North, and they are doing all they can to protect against the impact of a no deal, but they are deeply worried about supply chain delays, stockpiling and a tariff cliff edge. They are saying that they can put the sandbags down, but that’s it. So will the Secretary of State apologise to the many people in Cardiff North and across the whole country whose jobs and livelihoods he is willing to gamble and play politics with, and tell me whether his Government are preparing to fail or failing to prepare?

Simon Hart: After all, it was the hon. Lady’s party that voted against a deal last year, so when she had the opportunity to land this more carefully, she chose not to and therefore increased the risk of getting the outcome that she definitely does not want. Attempting to pillory the Government when actually there has been considerable daily joint working between the Welsh Government, under the control of her own party, and the UK Government over many months to ensure that the risks are minimised, is not just an insult to the House but an insult to her own colleagues in Cardiff who have been devoting a huge amount of time to try to make this work as seamlessly as possible.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Gavin Newlands: With reference to the spending review 2020, what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the UK shared prosperity fund.

David Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in regular discussions with Welsh Ministers about the UK shared prosperity fund before and after the announcement of the spending review. Further engagement will take place as further details of the fund are announced.

Gavin Newlands: I thank the Minister for that response. It has been suggested in the other place that the management of the UK shared prosperity fund will involve advisers jointly appointed by the UK and devolved Governments, yet the past few months have shown that this Government do not see themselves as an equal partner to the devolved nations and that they are instead wrongly centralising power to Westminster at the expense of devolution. What guarantees can he give to the devolved nations that they will have a cast-iron equal say on the governance of the UK shared prosperity fund? This is particularly pertinent, given the shocking contempt shown by the Government in trying to railroad through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

David Davies: The Prime Minister is showing his commitment to the importance of powers for the Scottish and Welsh Governments at this very moment in Brussels,  where he is standing up against those bureaucrats who are trying to take powers away from the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. It is this Conservative party and this Government who are standing up for the devolved settlement, and of course the UK Government will be looking forward to working in partnership with the devolved Administrations around the United Kingdom to ensure that the shared prosperity fund is properly spent.

Nia Griffith: As well as providing no certainty on the trading arrangements in just three weeks’ time, the Government have also ducked and dived on questions about the funding that Wales will receive in future years. Despite the Tory promise that Wales will not lose a single penny, the actual figures tell a different story. Wales alone was due some £350 million of new money for projects next year, but the Treasury is providing only £220 million for the whole UK. With Wales losing not just pennies but millions of pounds, how can the Government say they have kept their promise?

David Davies: The Government have kept their promise, because, of course, some of the funding that goes to Wales will still be coming from the European Union after we have left the transition period. If we take the total amount of money that is going to be spent, we will find it is the same. The Government have met their commitment to ensure that the same level of funding is spent in Wales, and we will meet our commitment to ensure that the money is better spent and not wasted, as the Wales Audit Office recently reported on agricultural spending, and is used to level up communities across the whole of Wales.

Nia Griffith: I am not sure whether that is a conclusive answer, but we are now nearly four and a half years on from the referendum and the Government still cannot provide clear answers on funding, so let me ask the Minister about the criteria on which the funding will be allocated. As he knows, the Welsh Government and local councils have agreed a framework for regional investment in Wales, so can he confirm that his Government will support that framework and not ride roughshod over devolved agreements or make up the spending criteria as they go along?

David Davies: We are certainly not going to make it up as we go along. Of course, the UK Government have been heavily involved in regional partnerships through the growth deals, which have been working very successfully in Wales as a result of funding from the UK Government. We have already demonstrated our commitment to working in partnership not just with the Welsh Government but with local authorities, because we are absolutely determined that the money that replaces European funding is not wasted, as it has been previously, but is spent on the most needy communities in Wales.

Agriculture

Edward Timpson: What steps his Department is taking to support the Welsh agricultural sector.

John Lamont: What steps his Department is taking to support the Welsh agricultural sector.

David Davies: The Government are steadfast in their support for Welsh agriculture, and that is why we have provided the same level of funding for Welsh farmers in 2021-22 as they received in 2019: £337 million a year. That meets our manifesto commitment to guarantee the annual budget for farmers, a commitment that applies for the whole of this Parliament.

Edward Timpson: We all want to see farmers in Wales and right across the United Kingdom prosper outside the European Union, but how can my hon. Friend ensure that farmers in my Eddisbury constituency will be able to compete with Welsh farmers just over the border who will continue to receive their area payments in the early years of the agricultural transition, whereas all English farmers will see their basic payment scheme payments of £230 per hectare halved by 2024?

David Davies: As a Government who are committed to the devolved settlement, we obviously will not be telling devolved Governments what they can do with the money; we will simply make sure the money is there. Of course, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has been brought forward to make absolutely certain that we do not see a situation where one part of the United Kingdom is able to compete in an unfair fashion with another part of the United Kingdom, and that is why I hope all Members will support that Bill.

John Lamont: My constituency in the Scottish borders is the second-highest recipient of common agricultural policy payments in the United Kingdom. Indeed, four of the top five recipients are in the devolved Administrations. How will the Government support the devolved Administrations with these payments in the future?

David Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents, like farmers across the whole United Kingdom, are pleased that the British Government will not implement the 10% cut to agricultural payments, which is being brought about by the European Union. He will be pleased that we have used the most generous exchange rate possible to calculate what those payments will be. If he lived in Wales, he would be pleased to know that the UK Government are providing £1.3 billion of additional funding to the Welsh Government, and we look forward to seeing how much of that will be used on agriculture.

Pub Closures: Covid-19

Tim Loughton: What discussions he has had with Welsh Government Ministers on the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on pub closures in Wales.

David Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the First Minister before he announced the closure of pubs in Wales and asked him to consider a tiered structure for covid restrictions, which would have better targeted areas with a high incidence of the virus. Regrettably, at that time the First Minister chose not to do so. I believe he may now be about to follow my right hon. Friend’s advice.

Tim Loughton: Before the Welsh Labour Government had the bright idea of bringing in a circuit breaker, the infection rate in Wales was 33 per 100,000 head of population. Since then, Wales has had one of the toughest lockdowns. Pubs have to close at six o’clock and they cannot serve alcohol. Infection rates in Wales are now 423 per 100,000. Have Welsh Government Ministers confided in my hon. Friend the reasons for this raging success, and is it perhaps that people in Wales have been so driven to drink with despair that they have to do it at home without social distancing, rather than in pubs?

David Davies: It is a sad fact that at the moment Wales has the highest number of cases per 100,000 in the UK, the highest number of deaths per 100,000, and the lowest amount of testing, but I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I wish to make any political point out of that. All of the United Kingdom has suffered. What I think we would welcome is a recognition that the Welsh Labour Government do not have some sort of magical answer to this situation which has eluded everybody else. We would welcome Welsh Ministers sitting down and working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the UK Government, so we can tackle this pandemic together as one nation.

David Jones: As we have heard, pubs in north Wales have been closed down by the Welsh Government and their trade is being destroyed, despite the fact that infection rates in north Wales are significantly less than in much of south Wales. When my hon. Friend does speak to Welsh Ministers, can he urge them to adopt a more intelligent and nuanced approach to covid restrictions? Otherwise, many of those pubs will never reopen.

David Davies: As I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), we would welcome the Welsh Government working in tandem with the UK Government to bring in a tiered system, so that in areas with a low incidence of the virus fewer restrictions are put in place. I believe that is an approach the Welsh Government are finally going to adopt. We look forward to sitting down and working with them.

Financial Support: Covid-19

David Simmonds: What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of fiscal support available to the Welsh Government in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

Simon Hart: The Government have provided a record amount of support to the Welsh Government, including a funding guarantee of an additional £5 billion this financial year. The Welsh Government will also receive an additional £1.3 billion next year, including £770 million to tackle covid-19.

David Simmonds: What further pressure can the Secretary of State bring to bear on Cardiff Bay to ensure that the funding going to the Welsh Government as a consequence of the Barnett consequentials formula finds its way to frontline services and is not absorbed in the bureaucratic costs of the Lib-Lab Government in Cardiff Bay?

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, particularly at a time when the Welsh Government are sitting on over £1 billion of unallocated Barnett funding, and so many businesses and institutions in Wales are crying out for support. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) said, we respect the devolution settlement and it is right that we should. However, if people are concerned, they have an opportunity to change this one-party state at the Senedd elections next May.

Manufacturing

Geraint Davies: What steps the Government are taking to support the manufacturing industry in Wales.

Simon Hart: The House needs only to look at the £30 million loan we secured for Celsa to see our commitment to Welsh manufacturing industry. We also provided over £2 billion in direct support to businesses in Wales, and our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment to stimulate manufacturing across the whole of the UK.

Geraint Davies: The delays in the Brexit deal, alongside the pandemic, have meant that the Welsh steel industry has been hit hard, Airbus has lost 1,400 jobs, Grenadier cars will be produced in France instead of Wales, and even Brains brewery is up for sale. Will the Secretary of State now press the Chancellor for a sector-specific manufacturing strategy, in the knowledge that only UK Governments can borrow in the long term at low interest rates to secure long-term pre-pandemic production levels after the vaccine is deployed and after the deal is agreed?

Simon Hart: The Chancellor’s contributions to the companies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as well as to Celsa, which I mentioned in my answer, have been second to none. We have had a very good, robust and thorough exchange with all the businesses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I could not agree with him more that part of the covid recovery programme is there to ensure not only that we get through the next few months but that there are sustainable futures for all those industries, particularly steel. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that we were quick off the blocks to rescue Celsa—and 600 to 800 jobs—in that process right at the beginning of the pandemic. That shows beyond reasonable doubt that we are absolutely committed to a steelmaking footprint in Wales.

Mark Tami: The Shotton steel plant produces some of the finest quality steel products in the world. The Prime Minister has said that UK steel producers will be
“at the front of the queue”—[Official Report, 24 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 1311.]
when it comes to future infrastructure projects, so will the Government now set targets on procurement? We need action rather than words—all we tend to get from this Government are warm words. Please, do not just blame Europe; can we have a proper answer?

Simon Hart: I am not going to blame Europe—or anybody else, for that matter. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have been making big strides as far as procurement is concerned and, of course, after the end of the transition those strides will be even bigger—that does not constitute blame, of course. We have regular conversations in Government, including with the Welsh Government, about making sure that procurement not only offers value for money for taxpayers but taps into the wonderful supply chain that we have in the UK, of which he gave a very good example.

The Union

Suzanne Webb: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

Theresa Villiers: What steps he is taking to help ensure that people in Wales benefit from the Union.

Simon Hart: The Government are unwavering in their commitment to the Union as a social and economic partnership. Its strength is demonstrated by the economic support we have provided to Welsh business during the covid-19 outbreak and by the city and growth deals that help to level up communities across the UK.

Suzanne Webb: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strengths of our Union—our great and united Union—is that we can support and help each other in times of crisis? What support are the UK Government giving to the Welsh Government to help them to fight the pandemic, now that Wales has the second-highest death rate per 100,000 in Europe?

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend touches on a current and important point: the Union is not a competition; it is a partnership. I sometimes think it gets portrayed as the former, whereas we all know that it is the latter. The UK Government have been able to introduce numerous financial interventions to assist the Welsh Government in fighting this dreadful pandemic. The most recent is yesterday’s joint letter from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the First Minister saying that where hospitals face real challenges and hardship in Wales, NHS England and the UK Government stand ready to offer whatever support we can and to put down our political differences to make sure that we fight covid as a UK-wide challenge.

Theresa Villiers: The scale of the response to covid in Wales in terms of economic support would never have been possible without the combined strength of our United Kingdom, so will my right hon. Friend emphasise that that strength will help us to ensure that Wales recovers alongside the rest of the United Kingdom as, hopefully, we move on from covid next year?

Simon Hart: My right hon. Friend is right. All the businesses in Wales that we have spoken to during the covid crisis have pointed out that they do not recognise political boundaries: they are fiercely Welsh and very patriotic, but they recognise that the economic regions stretch into the far corners of the UK and well beyond. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we do make that commitment. Whether or not we are Unionists in the original sense, we are very much on the same page.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Ruth Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the UK shared prosperity fund.

Kevin Brennan: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the UK shared prosperity fund.

David Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister and Welsh Ministers on a range of issues, including the UK shared prosperity fund.

Ruth Jones: Nadolig llawen i chi, Mr Speaker.
We have heard a lot from the Minister about the shared prosperity fund this morning, but I am still none the wiser on the details. What guarantees can the Minister provide that the long-awaited shared prosperity fund will provide no reduction in moneys received by the Welsh Government compared with current structural funding? What guarantees can the Minister provide that it will be the Welsh Government who decide how the money is allocated in Wales?

David Davies: We have already made the commitment that the amount of money will match everything that came from Europe. Previously, the European Union held the strings and controlled how the money was spent; now, it will be the UK Government working in partnership with local authorities and the Welsh Government to ensure that the money is spent wisely.

Kevin Brennan: The Minister says that the money will be matched, but when the dealing is done, will the so-called shared prosperity fund in fact turn out to be a pared back austerity fund for Wales, in keeping with normal Conservative practice? Merry Christmas.

David Davies: The shared prosperity fund will mean more money going into Wales, along with more powers, which will come about as a result of Brexit, going to Wales. We are looking forward to putting our Conservative record before the people of Wales in the elections next May.

Beth Winter: If, like the road to hell, this UK Government’s proposals regarding the shared prosperity fund are littered with good intentions, their actions, as with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, show that they are most interested in accumulating power to themselves. Please can the Minister explain when exactly we will learn what the mechanism will be for involving the Welsh Government in deciding which people, communities and local businesses will receive the necessary funding to enable them to level up, who will be the final arbiter, how much money will be available and when the process will begin?

David Davies: We have already said that discussions are ongoing, that the money will be matched, and that the shared prosperity fund will deliver our levelling-up agenda across Wales. The Labour party spent a long time saying that there would not be any money and that  there would not be any interest in Wales, but the reality is that we have shown that the money will be there and we want to make sure that it is used properly. Those sorts of arguments might raise a few cheers at Labour party conferences, but the people of Wales will be pleased to know that that money is going to come and that that interest in levelling up the whole of Wales will follow.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michael Fabricant: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 December.

Boris Johnson: Yesterday, I made a written ministerial statement updating the House on the latest position on the leak investigation,
as you requested, Mr Speaker.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing all Members and staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Members from across the House will also want to join me in sending our warmest wishes to all our armed forces, both in the United Kingdom and those who are stationed overseas. Members will also, I hope, want to join me in sending our very best wishes to all members of the emergency services, health and care workers, and those who will be working over Christmas.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Michael Fabricant: May I join the Prime Minister in those good wishes for Christmas and add my own good wishes to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Prime Minister and hope that you both have a peaceful and safe Christmas period?
Look, on the subject of Christmas, my constituents in Lichfield and Burntwood and those in the rest of the country have had a torrid year with the covid pandemic, and we have this very small break over Christmas. People must use common sense, of course: do not start hugging granny; do not go wild over Christmas; and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister previously said, let us be jolly careful over Christmas. I want to say to my Prime Minister that it would not be helpful if some smarmy lawyer, or somebody now at this late stage, were to argue for a change in the laws. May I ask my right hon. Friend, here and now, who is neither smarmy nor a lawyer—

Lindsay Hoyle: We’ve got the message!

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right in many ways, but right to stress the importance of people taking care this Christmas, because although some things are unquestionably going well—I am very pleased to tell the House that we have had a good start with the roll-out of the vaccination programme and in just seven days 108,000 people in England and 138,000 across the whole of the UK have received their first vaccination—we must remember that transmission  takes place asymptomatically in so many cases: one in three people are currently asymptomatic with covid. That is why my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should exercise extreme caution in the way we celebrate Christmas. We can celebrate it sensibly but we have to be extremely cautious in the way we behave.

Keir Starmer: May I join the Prime Minister in his good wishes to all the staff, the armed forces and our emergency services, and thank you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities for doing all that you have done this year to keep Parliament safe, and open, in challenging circumstances?
Since this is—probably—the last PMQs of the year, I want to look at some of the decisions that the Prime Minister has made in the last 12 months. Let me start at the beginning of the pandemic, when images from hospitals in Italy and Spain were being shown on our televisions and the infection rates were rising in the UK. Does the Prime Minister now accept that his slowness to respond led to more deaths, a longer lockdown, and deeper economic damage?

Boris Johnson: No, because at every stage we followed the scientific guidance, and continue to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to what is happening across the whole of Europe, and indeed there are spikes now taking place across the whole of the EU. Thanks to the tiering system that we have in place in large parts of the country, and thanks to the heroic efforts of the people of the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber, we are seeing those rates coming down. Yes, it is true that we have spikes now in some parts of London and the south-east, but we will make sure, with our adjustments to the tiering that we conduct over the next weeks, that we will address those issues. That is the right way forward for this country, and that is how we will defeat the virus—with vaccines, with community testing and with tough tiering. I think that what people would like to hear in this season of good will to all men is a little bit of support from the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what the Government are trying to do to beat coronavirus, and perhaps just a little less carping.

Keir Starmer: If the Prime Minister will not listen to me, let me quote his own spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility. It said that the UK locked down later and for longer than some of its European neighbours and experienced a deeper fall and slower economic recovery. This is not bad luck. It is not inevitable. It is the result of the Prime Minister’s choices. But if the Prime Minister disagrees, perhaps he can tell us why Britain, the sixth-richest country in the world, with all our brilliant scientists and amazing NHS, ends the year with one of the highest numbers of covid deaths in Europe—over 64,000, each one leaving a grieving family—and the deepest recession of any major economy. Why does he think that has happened?

Boris Johnson: The House will have noted the slight change of tune in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s criticisms of the UK’s performance. But perhaps he could tell me why the UK is the first to produce a viable treatment for coronavirus in the form of dexamethasone or the first country in the world to roll out a clinically tested stage 3 vaccine. This is a  pandemic that has affected the whole of Europe, and this Government have continued to take the tough decisions necessary to beat it. If I may say so, without wishing to cast aspersions on the point of the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would take his criticisms of the UK Government’s decisions a little more seriously, frankly, if he had been able to decide last week, or the week before, whether he even supported the approach we were taking or opposed it. He could not do either: he abstained.

Keir Starmer: I said two weeks ago at this Dispatch Box that I was very concerned that tier 2 would not be strong enough to hold the virus. The Prime Minister said, “Don’t worry about that. Just support us. Throw away the problems.” Two weeks later, what have we got? The virus rising in tier 2 and tier 3, and I will come back to that. If the Prime Minister thinks that the highest death numbers and the deepest recession is somehow delivering for the British people, he is a long way removed from the truth.
The problem is that the Prime Minister makes the same mistakes over and over again. Two weeks ago, he unveiled the latest covid plan. He told the House, as he has many times before, that his plan would suppress the virus, but the latest figures show the opposite. The Prime Minister talked about spikes here and there. Let me tell the House that in three out of four tier 2 areas, infections are going up. In over half of the tier 3 areas, infections are going up—exactly the concern that I put to the Prime Minister two weeks ago, when he said, “Just back us anyway.” As a result, this morning 10 million people moved into tougher restrictions—exactly what we said would happen: areas going up the tiers. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that his latest plan has once again failed to control the virus and protect the NHS and our economy?

Boris Johnson: Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman criticises the Government’s plans without producing any kind of plan of his own, except I seem to remember that he was the mastermind author of the Labour firebreak in Wales. If we look at what is happening across the country, it is thanks to the efforts of the British people that we are seeing significant reductions in the virus in some of the areas where it was really surging. That is because of the hard work of the people of this country. We will, of course, continue to reflect that as we go forward with the tiering approach, and we will continue to roll out the vaccine and community testing. I think that his time would be better employed supporting those wonderful initiatives, supporting community testing, encouraging people to get a test and encouraging people to get a vaccine, rather than continually attacking what the NHS and the Government are trying to do.

Keir Starmer: I have encouraged everybody to have the vaccine every time I have stood up and talked about it. The Prime Minister is avoiding the issue. In some places, the infection rate has gone up 70% in the last seven days. Everybody knows that this is a problem. The Prime Minister is yet again pretending that it is not.
Another major mistake of the last 12 months was losing public trust. We all know what the tipping point was: the 520-mile round trip to Barnard Castle and the humiliating way in which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet chose to defend it. Now we learn that, while the  Prime Minister and the Chancellor are telling the armed forces, police officers, careworkers and firefighters that they will get a pay freeze, Dominic Cummings has been handed at least a £40,000 pay rise. How on earth does the Prime Minister justify that?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman totally trivialises the efforts of the British people in getting the virus down. He says that none of the lockdown measures have worked. That is absolutely untrue. From 5 November to 3 December, the people of this country came together once again to get the virus under control, and they have made a huge amount of progress. We will continue with that tiering system, and we will get the virus down. That is the best way forward for this country. All he wants to do is to lock the whole country down—he is a one-club golfer; that is the only solution he has—and then, all he does is attack the economic consequences of lockdowns.

Keir Starmer: Mr Speaker, you could script that from October and November, when the Prime Minister was saying that a lockdown was the last thing the country needed and would be disastrous. Two weeks later, he put it on the table and voted for it—ridiculous! This is exactly the problem: not learning from mistakes. Obviously, we know that for Dominic Cummings, it was not performance- related pay. I think that the British people will find it pretty hard to understand why it is one rule for our key workers and another for his advisers.
It is now likely that the next big mistake will be over the easing of restrictions over Christmas—and it is not smarmy lawyers saying this. Let me tell the House what the British Medical Journal has said. The British Medical Journal said yesterday:
“we believe the government is about to blunder into another major error that will cost many lives.”
The Prime Minister should listen to that advice, not just ignore it as usual. If he really is going to press ahead with this, can he tell us what assessment has been done of the impact that it will have on infection rates and increased pressure on the NHS? What is the impact?

Boris Johnson: I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the guts just to say what he really wants to do, which is to cancel the plans people have made and cancel Christmas. That is really, I think, what he is driving at. He is looking a bit blank; I think that is what he is driving at. But I can tell him that, as of today—just this morning—there is actually, as I say, unanimous agreement across the UK Government and across all the devolved Administrations, including members of all parties, including his own, that we should proceed, in principle, with the existing regulations, because we do not want to criminalise people’s long-made plans. We do think it is absolutely vital that people should at this very, very tricky time exercise a high degree of personal responsibility, especially when they come into contact with elderly people, and avoid contact with elderly people wherever possible. That is how, by being sensible and cautious, not by imposing endless lockdowns or cancelling Christmas, as he would appear to want to do—that is the only implication I can draw from what he has said, unless he wants to announce some other idea—we will continue to work together to keep this virus under control, to defeat it and take the country forward.

Keir Starmer: Here we go again: ignoring the medical advice, and we know where that leads, because we have seen what happened in the last nine months. Whatever the Prime Minister says, there is no escaping the brutal facts that Britain has one of the highest numbers of covid deaths in Europe and the worst economic damage.
This is the last PMQs of the year, and I for one often wonder where the Prime Minister gets his advice from. Well, now I know, because I have here the official newsletter of the Wellingborough Conservative party. It is not on everyone’s Christmas reading list, but it is a fascinating read, because it gives a lot of advice to wannabe politicians. It says this:
“say the first thing that comes into your head… It’ll probably be nonsense… You may get a bad headline… but… If you make enough dubious claims, fast enough”,
you can get away with it. The December edition, includes the advice:
“Sometimes, it is better to give the WRONG answer at the RIGHT time, than the RIGHT answer at the WRONG time.”
So my final question to the Prime Minister is this: is he the inspiration for the newsletter, or is he the author?

Boris Johnson: I think what the people of this country would love to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this season of good will is any kind of point of view at all on some of the key issues. This week, he could not make up his mind whether it was right for kids to be in school or not, and havering completely. He could not make up his mind last week whether or not to support what the Government were doing to fight covid, and told his troops, heroically, to abstain. He could not make up his mind about Brexit, we all seem to remember. We do not know whether he will vote for a deal or not. He cannot attack the Government if he cannot come up with a view of his own. In the words of the song, “All I want for Christmas is” a view, and it would be wonderful if he could produce one.
This Government are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities, with 20,000 more police, 50,000 more nurses, 48 new hospitals and—although it has been very tough and very difficult, and everybody appreciates the suffering and hardship that the people of this country have been going through—by rolling out the vaccine, by community testing and by tough tiering, which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports, we are going to defeat coronavirus and we are going to take this country forward into a great 2021.

Henry Smith: At the beginning of this year, the Prime Minister delivered the historic British people’s votes for Brexit. Regardless of the outcome of the current talks with the EU, does he agree with me that this great outward-looking nation has a world of global opportunities ahead of it?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who has campaigned nobly in that cause. As he knows, already we have not only set up a points-based immigration system, taking back control of our borders, but we will ensure that—and we have already done many free trade deals—we will use the economic advantages of Brexit, coming out of the European Union, to do free ports, to make this country the most attractive place for investment for business and for enterprise around the world and, above all, to resist the depredations of the socialists opposite, who would destroy that opportunity and do  everything they possibly could to take us straight back into the lunar pull of the European Union, which is the true ambition of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

Ian Blackford: May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all colleagues, staff, essential workers, health workers, and everyone in these nations all the best for Christmas? I hope everyone does their best to keep everybody safe.
In the past few hours, the President of the European Commission has said that the next few days are going to be “decisive” in the Brexit negotiations. With just two weeks to go, it is a disgrace that businesses and people have been left with that crippling uncertainty, and the real threat of food and medicine shortages come the new year. One year ago, at the general election, Scotland rejected this Prime Minister. It rejected this Tory Government, and it rejected their extreme Brexit. People in Scotland now need to know the price they will be forced to pay. Ahead of any vote in Parliament, will the Prime Minister commit to releasing a detailed economic impact assessment of the cost to the UK of his extreme Tory Brexit plans?

Boris Johnson: Notwithstanding the slight uncharacteristic air of gloom from the right hon. Gentleman, there is every opportunity—and hope I have—that our friends and partners across the channel will see sense and do a deal. All that takes is for them to understand that the UK has a natural right, like every other country, to want to be able to control its own laws and its own fishing grounds —I would have thought that would be important to the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever happens in the next few days, I know that this country will prosper mightily on the terms that we agree with our European friends, and whatever those terms may be—whether they are Australian or Canadian—he can go forward with a high heart and confidence into 2021, knowing that there are great opportunities for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Ian Blackford: I am not quite sure what that was, Mr Speaker, but it certainly wasn’t an answer to the question. I am not surprised, because the Prime Minister did not want to answer the question. He knows that the United Kingdom is poorer and worse off as a result of the extreme Tory Brexit, and the costs continue to soar. The Warwick study estimates that Scotland has already lost £4 billion as a result of Brexit, and Bloomberg Economics estimates that the UK will have lost £200 billion by the end of this year. Scottish Government analysis estimates that every person in Scotland will, on average, be worse off to the tune of £1,600.
Scotland has been completely ignored by Westminster throughout the Brexit process, and we are now being kept in the dark over the devastating price that we will be forced to pay. People in Scotland are not willing to suffer the consequences of this economic vandalism, and 16 consecutive polls have shown a majority for independence—that is little wonder, Mr Speaker. Is it not as clear as day that the only way left to protect Scotland’s interests and our place in Europe is for Scotland to become an independent country?

Boris Johnson: Again, despite the gloom that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to spread about Scotland and the rest of the UK, the UK currently has the highest  youth employment in the G7—I could perhaps have made that point to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—and lower unemployment than France, Italy, Spain, the United States and Canada. There is a threat to the Scottish economy, sadly, and that is the high tax regime and mismanagement of the Scottish nationalist party. That is the problem that Scotland faces, and I hope that the people of Scotland can see it.

Sarah Dines: As my right hon. Friend knows, the tourism and hospitality sector in constituencies across the country, but particularly in Derbyshire Dales, has been severely affected by the pandemic and the national restrictions. That includes places such as the Flying Childers Inn in Stanton in the Peak. What support and hope can the Government give that sector in the weeks and months ahead?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for everything she does to campaign for Derbyshire Dales and for hospitality. It has been a terrible time for hospitality. We all share the anguish of those who work in the hospitality sector. That is why we have cut VAT overall, as she knows, from 20% to 5% in those sectors until the end of March, and we are going to develop, with her help, a tourism recovery plan to help people come to see the beauties of the Derbyshire Dales in particular.

Colum Eastwood: Last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that Northern Ireland would have the “best of both worlds” as a result of the talks with the European Union. For that to be true, we need access to both UK and EU trade deals. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether he is pushing for that in those talks?

Boris Johnson: Of course, as the agreement with our friends has already made clear, the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, will participate fully in all trade deals that the UK does, and Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to the whole of the UK market.

James Davies: At the recent spending review, over £14 billion was allocated for research and development. That was excellent news, but there is a concern that charity-funded medical research, which has been hit hard by the pandemic, will still be left behind. Will my right hon. Friend intervene to ensure that some of that funding is used to set up a life sciences charity partnership fund to boost medical research, protect thousands of skilled jobs and promote the UK’s position as a science superpower?

Boris Johnson: Yes indeed. I know that my hon. Friend, as a doctor, knows the vital importance of medical research and pure science. That is why this Government are investing record sums in science R&D—£14.6 billion in 2021-22. That is going to support all the life sciences sectors. If anybody wants evidence of why it is so vital to support those sectors, they have only to look at the events of the last few months.

Alex Norris: HS2, in full, will transform the east midlands and the north, reversing a 40-year trend of losing skilled work.  In February, the Prime Minister promised that it would be built in full. Yesterday’s National Infrastructure Commission review reduces the eastern leg to a small line between Birmingham and the disliked station at East Midlands Parkway. That will not deliver the connectivity or the economic uplift that the midlands and the north need. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his previous commitment and reject the NIC’s plan, or is this yet another broken promise to our community?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. What the NIC is saying is that there are other things we can do as well, including massively improving the midland main line—I think everybody would want to do that—but the ambition to do the eastern leg, as I have said in the House before, remains absolutely unchanged.

Anthony Browne: Like schools and teachers across the country, those in South Cambridgeshire have been working miracles to continue providing education throughout the pandemic. They are grateful for the support they have had from the Government, they welcome the new exams regime and they also very much welcome the new testing regime for coronavirus. But schools in Cambridgeshire started with some of the lowest funding of any in the country, and many have been left with deficits that they cannot fill. Will my right hon. Friend work with me to make sure that schools in Cambridgeshire get the resources they need? Will the Prime Minister be Santa for Cambridgeshire’s schoolkids?

Lindsay Hoyle: Father Christmas?

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, the whole of the country and the taxpayers of this country play that role; it is our job to make sure that we spend the money sensibly, and that is what we were doing. I am delighted that, thanks in part to the campaigning by my hon. Friend, his constituency is attracting an average of 3.8% more per pupil next year compared with this year through the national funding formula—a total of £4.8 million more, in addition, of course, to our commitment to pay every teacher a starting salary of £30,000.

Liz Twist: The hospitality sector, and in particular pubs in my constituency such as the Black Bull in Blaydon, a wet pub with a fine live local music tradition, has been devastated by the restrictions placed on it, in our case since September. Pubs such as the Black Bull are at the heart of our communities. The various compensation schemes do not offer enough support to allow those pubs to survive. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward a financial support scheme that will allow our pubs and hospitality sector to survive?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member is quite right to raise the problem in the hospitality sector. We are committed to doing everything we can. She knows about the £3,000 grant, the additional £2,100, plus the £1,000 for wet pubs. But the best thing of all—in addition to the cuts in business rates and VAT that I have already mentioned—is for areas in the west midlands to work together—

Liz Twist: North-east.

Boris Johnson: Sorry; forgive me. The best thing is for areas in the north-east to work together to reduce the virus through community testing in the way that Liverpool has succeeded in doing. I appreciate that the hon. Member’s constituency is in in tier 3 and things are very, very tough, but if we all work together, we can get the virus down and get our pubs open again.

Transition Period: Business

Joy Morrissey: What steps the Government have taken to help ensure that businesses are prepared for the end of the transition period.

Boris Johnson: We are confident that the UK will prosper, whether on a Canada-style arrangement or Australia-style terms.

Joy Morrissey: In the light of the new opportunities that the end of the transition period will bring, is the Prime Minister aware of the ambitious economic growth proposition developed in Buckinghamshire? Will he back this bold bid for Bucks to ensure that Buckinghamshire continues to increase its contribution to the Exchequer: a win for the businesses of Bucks and a win for the levelling-up agenda?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I know that Buckinghamshire Council is working closely with my hon. Friend and partners across the voluntary sector. We have been in initial discussions with Buckinghamshire about its proposals and are happy to taken them forward.

Engagements

Ronnie Cowan: Prime Minister, were you as dismayed as I was by the number of drug-related deaths reported in Scotland yesterday? If you were, then you can do something about it. Not just in Scotland, but across the United Kingdom, obstacles exist to the creation of drug consumption rooms, and those obstacles can be removed—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not responsible; the hon. Member keeps saying “you”, and honestly, I do not want to be responsible for any of this.

Ronnie Cowan: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I am obviously addressing my question to the Prime Minister. There are obstacles that exist across the United Kingdom to the creation of drug consumption rooms, and those obstacles can be removed at Westminster. Previously the UK Government have held an ideological view that drug consumption rooms encourage drug taking. Will the Prime Minister engage with me and allow me the opportunity to help him do a good thing?

Boris Johnson: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I must say that we do not want to do anything that would encourage the consumption of more drugs, nor do we want to decriminalise the possession of drugs, because I believe that they ruin lives and drive criminality across the whole United Kingdom. I am more than happy to look at the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman one more time, and to pursue the agenda of tackling drugs, but the vast panoply of powers that are needed to tackle drugs and drugs crime are already vested with the devolved Administration in Scotland, and I am afraid that the failures that he talks about are very largely down to them.

Huw Merriman: Mr Speaker, may I wish you and everyone in Parliament a merry Christmas, and thank you for keeping us in our place? I extend those best wishes to the Prime Minister as well; it has been a tumultuous 12 months, but he has shown great resolve and determination in leading our nation through it.
This has been a wretched year due to covid, but the vaccination offers us a ray of hope in 2021. Does the Prime Minister agree that all those called upon to take the vaccine will not only be protecting their own health, but doing their civic duty in helping the health of others, keeping people in jobs and getting us back to our cherished way of life?

Boris Johnson: It is great to hear my hon. Friend, because he speaks such good sense on this matter; I hope that he is heard up and down the land. It is absolutely vital that people who are offered the vaccine do take steps to get it immediately. They will be protecting themselves and they will be protecting everyone else.

Sharon Hodgson: Highly skilled engineers at Centrica’s British Gas in my constituency were told last week that they had to sign new contracts before Christmas, or else they would be fired and rehired in the new year on worse terms. Fire and rehire is an exploitative and illegitimate negotiation tactic, and causes real hurt and anger. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on Centrica to withdraw its threat and return to the negotiation table with workers and their union, the GMB, and will he work with Labour and the trade unions to introduce legislation to ban fire and rehire as soon as possible?

Boris Johnson: It is very important that all businesses treat their employees with fairness and respect. In that sense, I utterly share the point of view of the hon. Lady, but it is also vital that we have a flexible economy that is able to generate jobs, particularly when we are going to go through a very difficult and bumpy time. We have had a proud record of keeping employment high and unemployment low in this country, and we want to continue with that approach.

Mark Eastwood: Despite the challenges presented by the pandemic, working with the council and local enterprise partnership Kirklees College has managed to open its new campus at the Pioneer House in the centre of Dewsbury. Not only will the influx of students give a much-needed boost to the town centre, but it will open up skills and apprenticeships to young people throughout my constituency. Would my right hon. Friend agree to accompany me on a visit to look round this iconic building, and to view the amazing sculpture loaned by renowned artist Antony Gormley, as soon as my right hon. Friend’s schedule, and restrictions, allow?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. I will do what I can to fit in his very kind invitation to inspect this sculpture. I admire Mr Gormley’s work greatly, by the way. I am delighted that Kirklees College has opened the Pioneer Higher Skills Centre, providing high level education and skills training for the people of Dewsbury. I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for that.

John McNally: The Prime Minister promised to fund 4,000 zero-emission buses by 2024, but the spending review delivers just 800 such buses. Why has he put the handbrake on when it comes to supporting the bus building sector? With COP26 less than a year away, does he agree that it is time to put the pedal to the floor, get the low and zero-emission bus production lines in Falkirk, Yorkshire and Ballymena full, and support the bus building sector in full, as he promised?

Boris Johnson: I can confidently say that I do not believe that there is another Member of this House who has built as many buses, or caused as many buses to be built, as I have. We are absolutely committed to rolling out, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, 4,000 zero- emission buses and the country’s first all electric bus town. He is right to lobby for the wonderful Alexander Dennis buses that are built in in Falkirk. We will certainly champion them, as well as buses built in Ballymena and elsewhere. He can take it from me that, in a zero-carbon way, we are putting the pedal to the floor until we get to 4,000.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Kevin Sinfield and Leeds Rhinos rugby league club on raising over £2.5 million for the Motor Neurone Disease Association by running seven marathons in seven days in honour of Rob Burrow, who is living with motor neurone disease? Will the Government commit to increasing their investment in MND research and marching on together to find a cure?

Lindsay Hoyle: Hear, hear, Prime Minister!

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I share your enthusiasm for what Kevin Sinfield—

Lindsay Hoyle: Sir Kev.

Boris Johnson: For what Sir Kevin—thank you, Mr Speaker—and Leeds Rhinos have done. MND is indeed a devastating condition. I congratulate Sir Kevin on his actions, and the Government are certainly in full support.

Seema Malhotra: My constituent Charlotte, a single parent, has twice this term had to stop work due to her five-year-old son’s class self-isolating. She has been told that, because it is her son who is self-isolating, she is ineligible for the £500 support payment. The Library has confirmed that parents may need to use annual or unpaid leave in such circumstances. Is it not wrong to exclude parents on the lowest income from support to look after their children, and will the Prime Minister urgently look again at that? Wales and Scotland have done it, so why will he not now support parents in England?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is of course right to draw attention to the hardship of parents who have had to cope with kids coming home from school because of self-isolation rules. One of the things that we are trying to do now is roll out lateral flow testing on a grand scale for schools, so that we reduce the size of the bubbles that have to self-isolate. We are doing whatever we can to support families throughout the crisis, as she knows, with big uprates in universal credit and all manner of support that we are providing, in addition to free childcare for 30 hours a week.
The best answer for this crisis is to keep our kids in school, to test them and to roll out that programme of mass community testing, which I am sure the hon. Lady supports in her neighbourhood, in order to drive the virus down, allow the vaccine time really to kick in, and protect our elderly and vulnerable so that we can all move forward together as a society. That is what this Government are aiming for, but in the meantime I fully appreciate the problem that she has raised, and we will do our very best to address it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business, and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will now suspend the sitting for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Caroline Nokes: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the changes to the immigration rules laid last week will reduce the numbers of asylum seekers in supported accommodation.

Chris Philp: This Government are taking action to fix the asylum system so that it is firm and fair—firm where the system is being abused, but fair to those who need protection. And we have been clear: we will use every means at our disposal to make the use of small boats to cross the channel unviable.
Last week we laid changes to the immigration rules that are vital to curb irregular migration, which is often facilitated by ruthless criminal gangs. Channel crossings are not only highly dangerous but unnecessary, because France and other European countries are safe. Asylum should be claimed there. These changes will mean that individuals who could and should have claimed asylum previously in a safe country may not have their asylum claims determined in the UK where we are able to safely return them. The changes also enable us to consider the return of these individuals to any safe country besides the safe country where they could have claimed asylum. Individuals will also not be able to make asylum claims at sea.
At the end of the transition period, the UK is no longer bound by the Dublin regulation. These new measures will enable us, by agreement, to replace Dublin with more flexible returns arrangements. This will have a deterrent effect, by sending a clear message to anyone thinking of coming to the UK dangerously from a safe country that they should not risk their lives by doing so. This deterrent effect will also destroy the business model of the ruthless criminal gangs.
Such returns would, of course, reduce numbers in accommodation. I want to be clear that we are not turning our back on those who need our help after fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny. We stand by our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, the European convention on human rights and other relevant treaties. We will continue to welcome people to the UK through safe and legal routes, assisting the most vulnerable, providing accommodation and meeting essential living needs.
As I have set out, we are taking a number of steps to tackle irregular, dangerous migration. But addressing the problem really requires a complete overhaul, and in the first half of next year we will bring forward a Bill to fix the immigration and asylum system once and for all. This country will be fair to those who need protection, but firm where the system is being abused.

Caroline Nokes: Coming into force on 1 January, the Home Office’s proposed changes to the asylum system have far-reaching implications. Intended to act as a deterrent to people traffickers, which of course is laudable, they instead create a separate tier of asylum seekers, who will not have their claims considered and who the  Minister will seek to return, albeit with no mechanism yet to do so. They will also be housed in camps, such as the one proposed in Test Valley, with no mains electricity or mains water. How does the Minister intend to issue written guidance as to how these changes will be processed? He has just 10 working days before they come into force. Will the permitted development powers that the Minister intends to use to create several of these camps be extended by statutory instrument, like these rules, avoiding parliamentary scrutiny? Does he think the changes might in fact see an increase to the asylum application backlog? Does he have a strategic plan or does he hope that housing people on sites where he admits he will not provide healthcare will just act as a deterrent? He acknowledges that, even without covid, only a few thousand failed asylum seekers are returned each year, and in 10 working days he loses Dublin. I know he is working with the French to secure a replacement, but what about Greece, Spain and Italy, and will those agreements be in place by 1 January?
The Home Office is already in court over its inhuman treatment of asylum seekers housed in barracks and it has settled some claims, moving people into more appropriate accommodation. Is the Minister concerned he has laid these rules before the rest of those cases are heard, and just a matter of days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that the Home Office had
“a culture where equality was not seen as important”?
Last year, Wendy Williams identified that the Home Office needed to examine the development of policies to make sure that the person was put at the heart of its services. How do these rules fit with that?
The Minister has talked of legal routes, but he has committed to resettle only 232 people—the final step in delivering the pledge to resettle 20,000 Syrians, of which we were all proud. When will he finally launch the programme to resettle 5,000 refugees this year, which was announced in 2019?
The Minister plans to put people in camps with no mains water at a time when we know hygiene is critical. If it were not for you having granted this urgent question today, Mr Speaker, he would not even have come to the House to explain himself.

Chris Philp: On the first question, about the asylum track, after somebody arrives—having come, we believe, from a safe country where they could have claimed asylum—and if they are declared inadmissible, we will seek for a short period to get the agreement of that other country to return them there, where their asylum claim can be substantively and properly considered. If that is not possible, the asylum claim will of course be substantively and properly considered in this country.
My right hon. Friend asked some questions about our asylum system more generally—I think she was in some way seeking to insinuate that it was not reasonable or fair. The accommodation that we provide is reasonable and good, and there are 60,000 people currently being accommodated.
In terms of our system more widely, last year we made 20,000 grants of asylum or other forms of protection—that is a very high number. We welcomed and received more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children last year than any other European country, including Greece. Over the  last five years, our resettlement schemes have seen 25,000 people taken directly from conflict zones and resettled in the United Kingdom—more than any other European country. After the 232 remaining people have come over, we will continue with resettlement, as far as we are able to, given the context of coronavirus and everything else. I therefore think we have a proud record of helping people who are genuinely in need.
My right hon. Friend asked about safe and legal routes. In addition to what I have described, last year over 6,000 people came into the UK under the refugee family reunion routes, which of course continue to exist.
The purpose of these changes is to prepare us for life after Dublin, and it is quite right that we make preparations, but at the heart of this is a desire to dissuade people—indeed, prevent people—from making unnecessary and dangerous journeys, particularly across the English channel, endangering their own lives and feeding ruthless criminal people smugglers, and all for no purpose, because France is a safe country where asylum can easily be claimed, as are the other European countries these migrants have travelled through.
My right hon. Friend asked about future agreements. She referenced France, and we are of course in close dialogue with France—we have a very close and friendly relationship. We will also be entering into discussions with other countries, including some of the ones she mentioned, as soon as the current European-level negotiations are concluded. These rules lay the foundations for those future discussions and negotiations, but most of all they will deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, and I hope the House will join me in supporting that objective.

Holly Lynch: I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this urgent question and for the incredibly important points she made, not least in relation to asylum accommodation.
As we have heard, these changes will allow a claim to be found inadmissible if someone has had the opportunity to claim asylum in another safe third country prior to claiming asylum in the UK. That is not dissimilar to the current arrangements under the Dublin III regulations that we have in place with our European neighbours, but which will cease at the end of this month. We are leaving the Dublin III regulations, so this change allows the Government to deem a claim inadmissible without any co-operation or agreement in place to facilitate returning the person concerned to a third country. This is an unworkable half-plan, being introduced by the back door as changes to the immigration rules, with no opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
On Monday, the Minister outlined that it is this Government’s intention to open discussions with those countries as soon as we are able to do so. Can he confirm that those talks are yet to start and that there will be no such arrangements in place by 1 January, when these changes come into effect? Will he clarify what a person’s rights will therefore be in the period between their claim being found inadmissible and a returns agreement being reached?
The changes also suggest that an asylum claim can be reinstated after a reasonable period of time, if another safe country is unable to admit that person. How long is “a reasonable period”? Further still, as the Minister has  confirmed, these changes will allow someone to be removed to any safe third country, including countries that the person has never been to and has no connection with. How does he envisage that that could possibly work in practice?
The changes before us come into effect in less than a month’s time. The Minister must realise the widespread concern about leaving some incredibly vulnerable people in limbo, at risk of homelessness and destitution.

Chris Philp: Let me reassure the shadow Minister on one or two points. She concluded her questions by asking about the risk of destitution. To be clear, if somebody who is in the inadmissible cohort is unable to make provision for their own accommodation or upkeep, they will be eligible for accommodation in the normal way, just as people currently in the Dublin third country cohort, awaiting return to a European country, are accommodated and supported. There will be no risk of destitution, which would of course infringe their article 3 rights were it ever to happen.
The hon. Lady asks about the status of people who may fall into that cohort. Clearly, the intention is that a period of time will pass when we seek the agreement of a third country to return them. That will happen within a reasonable time—we will set that out in guidance, but it will be a matter of a few months; it will not be a long time. If, after that reasonable time, no agreement is forthcoming, their asylum claim will be substantively considered here. There will not be any extended period of limbo, which I do not think would be in anybody’s interests.
The hon. Lady refers to the fact that these arrangements are in some regards similar in concept to Dublin. I hope the House will take from that that they are reasonable in spirit, because no one has objected to the principles that underpin the Dublin regulations—indeed, many people have pointed to them as exemplars.
Finally, the message all of us in this House should be sending out, the Opposition Front Bench included, is that if somebody is in continental Europe and they feel they have a protection claim that needs to be heard, they should not attempt a dangerous crossing of the English channel. They should not pay money to ruthless people smugglers. They should use the very well-functioning asylum systems in our very civilised European neighbours. Let that message go out from this House today; it will save life.

John Redwood: Many people in the country share the views the Minister has just expressed; they are appalled by the dangerous and illegal trade in people across the channel, both in dangerous boat voyages and in trucks and cargo containers. He has every support from millions of people to do something. Will he also ensure in the new law that comes in that, while there is the opportunity for appeal, there are not repetitive, constant and frivolous appeals, delaying the judgment and wasting the time and resource of the Home Office?

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. As he says, I think these proposals and this approach will command widespread public support. The public do not understand why people should cross the English channel in dangerous circumstances, facilitated  by criminals, when they could perfectly easily claim asylum in France or somewhere else, which is of course what they should do. Characteristically, he makes an extremely pertinent and prescient point about the legal process, which the new Bill next year will most certainly address. At the moment, it is possible to bring a series of claims over a period of time—repetitively, sometimes vexatiously and sometimes even in contradiction with one another—with the express purpose in mind of preventing, frustrating or delaying the proper application of our immigration rules. We will be legislating to prevent that kind of abuse of the legal process, and I look forward to working with him on making that law a reality.

Stuart McDonald: I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this urgent question. It seems to me that this is not about fixing the asylum system; rather, it is about blocking access to it, leaving people in limbo and undermining the refugee convention in doing so. The Minister has focused on the channel, but putting aside those crossing the channel, can he be clear on what percentage of asylum applicants the Department thinks is likely to be impacted by these inadmissibility rules and left in limbo? Can he be clearer on what statutory support and accommodation will be available to those who are put in that limbo situation? If this is really about replacing Dublin, surely we must wait to see what replacement agreements are concluded and what safeguards are in place before being asked to look at these changes.
Finally, if the Government are serious about fixing the asylum system, will they start by addressing yesterday’s news of 29 deaths in asylum accommodation this year alone? Can we have a clear Government commitment and published policy to record and investigate such deaths, to support the bereaved and to learn lessons so as to prevent further tragedies? Surely creating a legal limbo of several months will only make things worse, not better.

Chris Philp: First, as I have said, the people in this cohort will not be in limbo, because after a reasonable period, if no return to another country is possible, the asylum claim will be substantively considered here. The possibility of limbo that the hon. Gentleman referred to does not exist, as I have said twice already.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of destitution. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the people in this cohort will be eligible for accommodation and support, so the risk of destitution, which would be in contravention of article 3, does not exist either.
The hon. Gentleman asked about people crossing the channel and referenced the refugee convention. He will know that article 31 of the refugee convention talks about people
“coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”
being immune to various forms of penalty. He will know that France is a safe country where people’s life and freedom are not threatened. Human rights are respected in France. Asylum claims can be processed in  France and, indeed, in other countries through which this cohort typically pass prior to their arrival in France. That deals with the questions that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the very sad deaths in accommodation, every single one of which is, of course, a tragedy. I remind him that we have 60,000 people in asylum accommodation. While each individual case is very sad, if he studies the statistics he will see that the numbers are not out of line with what we would expect among a population of 60,000 people.

Edward Leigh: Sooner or later, there is going to be an appalling tragedy in the channel. The reason economic migrants make this crossing is that they know that our present asylum laws are a complete joke. If someone makes it halfway across the channel, their chances of ever being deported are virtually nil, because of the activities of so-called human rights lawyers, who are actually putting lives at risk by their shenanigans in the law courts. What we want from the Minister is a firm commitment that, from 1 January, if someone crosses the channel and it is obvious that they are coming from a safe country, they will be immediately returned—that is what we want to know.

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend, who has a distinguished legal background, for his question. He is absolutely right: we need to deter these crossings, and we need to ensure that our legal process works effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, very often it does not do so. Despite that, we are able to return and deport quite large numbers of people if they should not be in the country or if they have committed very serious criminal offences, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago.
In relation to the question about immediate returns from 1 January, that is the policy objective of the Government—it is my objective, the Home Secretary’s objective and, indeed, the Prime Minister’s objective. But in order to effect returns, we need the agreement of the receiving country, and so my top priority, as soon as the European-level negotiations are concluded, is to seek exactly those kind of return agreements.

Yvette Cooper: The Government are about to end the only agreement that they have in a place for safe returns by ending the Dublin agreement, which will make it harder, not easier, for the Minister to complete safe returns. He told the Home Affairs Committee that there are currently no negotiations for a replacement—they have not even started—and we are only 15 days away. Will the Minister confirm what I think he just said—that asylum accommodation and support will still be available for everyone who is in this limbo for the next few months? Does that mean that with no return agreement in place and the existing support systems continuing, he is actually adding several months to the waiting times for asylum claims to be sorted out? If he had an agreement, he could just use the existing rules.

Chris Philp: On the Select Committee Chair’s question about accommodation and support, I can confirm that it will be available, as I have said already, because not to provide it would breach article 3. That support will be available and people will not fall into destitution.
On the negotiations, back in May—I believe it was 19 May—we tabled an EU proposal on these matters, but if that is not agreed to in the course of the current discussions, we will seek bilateral agreements with various countries. As I said to the right hon. Lady’s Committee a week or two ago, individual member states have been asked by the Commission not to engage in such discussions while the European negotiations are ongoing, so we will commence those as soon as we are able to. Even in the absence of those discussions, it is possible to raise returns cases on a case-by-case basis with member states, which, of course, we can do from 1 January. Critically, the new provisions prepare the way—they lay the foundations—for agreements that we may reach in future, besides facilitating case-by-case action.
Finally, although currently in force, the Dublin regulations have not been terribly effective. The right hon. Lady will know that the numbers we successfully return under Dublin are really rather small, numbering in the low hundreds per year. I am confident that, through active negotiation, not only can we replace Dublin but we can improve on it.

Jack Brereton: I thank the Minister for everything he is doing to tackle illegal migration into this country. As he knows, in Stoke-on-Trent we have resettled the largest number of refugees in the region, which has put significant pressure on local services. Will my hon. Friend look at what more can be done to ensure that local services are not overwhelmed, and put more pressure on local authorities in other parts of the country that are not contributing fairly to the rehousing of refugees?

Chris Philp: I thank my hon. Friend and Stoke-on-Trent for their work to welcome genuine refugees, including as part of the resettlement programme. He raises a good point, because some parts of the country decline to take unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as part of the national transfer scheme, thereby putting enormous pressure on gateway authorities such as Kent, Portsmouth, Croydon and Hillingdon; and many other authorities, despite proclaiming themselves to be cities or even nations of sanctuary, often do not give consent for dispersed accommodation for asylum seekers. I say to any of those local authorities and to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales: please help us by accepting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under the national transfer scheme, particularly from Kent, Portsmouth, Hillingdon and Croydon, and please give consent for dispersed accommodation, because it is essential that we have that available to accommodate people who are seeking asylum.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that this is a huge global issue; that there are almost 80 million refugees globally; that 85% of them have been taken in by the poorest countries in the world, not the wealthiest; that all of them are human beings; and that those who have made their way to this country, historically and in the current time, have made a massive contribution to our lives and our wellbeing? Can he say something positive about the contribution that refugees make to our society?
In the light of the new regulations, can the Minister give us an assurance that no refugees will be destitute while they are waiting for a decision, that none will be  left homeless and that none will be left without food? Sadly, in all our cities one comes across people who are making apparently legitimate claims for asylum but are left in a position of destitution and forced to rely on the faith community merely to survive. Does the Minister not think that we can do a bit better than that in the fifth richest country in the world?

Chris Philp: I have already given the assurance about destitution to the shadow Minister and to the Chair of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the asylum system in general does provide support, accommodation and other support, the cost of which is getting on for £1 billion a year, so it is generous in nature. He talks about the refugee problem around the world, which we recognise. That is one reason why we spend a great deal of money on overseas aid. Even after the recent adjustment, that will still be many, many billions of pounds, probably in the region of £10 billion, which is more than almost every other country in the world, so we are doing our bit that way.
We are also doing our bit through the resettlement scheme, which I talked about earlier. It is the largest resettlement scheme of any European country—25,000 people over the past five years. Of course I accept that the people who choose to make their home in this country can, and very often do, make a significant contribution, which we welcome. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), set up the points-based immigration system with the Home Secretary, which went active very recently. It is essential that people either claiming asylum or entering the country for work and other purposes do so legally, and all Members of this House, including the former Leader of the Opposition, should be very clear with migrants in Europe that they should not attempt this dangerous crossing and they should not pay dangerous people smugglers. If they need protection, they should claim it where they are in Europe.

Marco Longhi: My Dudley North constituents and I really want to place on record our gratitude to the Home Secretary and her team for the huge efforts that they are putting into fixing our broken asylum system. Does the Minister agree that we must get this legislation absolutely watertight to put a stop to the fraudulent claims that are costing the hard-working taxpayers of this country very dearly?

Chris Philp: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that, as it stands, the legal system is, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, unfortunately routinely abused with repeated unmeritorious claims. We are determined to prevent that from happening. Of course people will have a fair hearing, but we cannot have our legal system abused. I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s assistance in making sure that this legislation is tightly drafted to ensure that there are no loopholes.

Alistair Carmichael: I too congratulate the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on obtaining this very important urgent question. It is quite remarkable that, but for her efforts, there would be no effective scrutiny of changes of this magnitude.  May I take the Minister at his word when he speaks about support for safe and legal routes and perhaps invite him then to update the House on what work he is doing to build a replacement for the Dubs scheme to bring unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the United Kingdom?

Chris Philp: As I have already said, we have a very effective resettlement scheme, which takes people directly from conflict zones. The resettlement schemes that we have run over the past five years have principally focused, for obvious reasons, on Syria. A total of 25,000 people have come in via those schemes over five years. The Dubs scheme focuses on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe. If we have to prioritise our scarce resources, we should prioritise people, including children, who are in dangerous places such as Syria, not people who are in Italy, who are already in a safe European country. Furthermore, in terms of UASCs in Europe, this country had more UASC applications last year than any other European country. The figure was about 3,800 applications, which means that we are doing our bit for UASCs in Europe, but it is right that we prioritise people in dangerous places, not people in countries such as Italy when it comes to direct resettlement.

Suzanne Webb: I welcome the immediate steps this Government have taken to overhaul our broken asylum system. What steps is my hon. Friend taking in the longer term to fix the system once and for all?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is right: the measures in this set of rules are only a first step. The asylum and immigration system has far more systematic and fundamental problems that cause it, unfortunately, to be abused on many occasions. We need to have fundamental legislative change and, as I said in oral questions just a few days ago, we intend to legislate in the first half of next year to make sure that the legal system is tightened up, so that it cannot be abused and we have a system that is fair to those who need protection, but firm on those trying to abuse it.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I, too, would like to thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing the urgent question. The treatment of asylum seekers already in the care of the Home Office is immensely significant and the Government’s shocking treatment of asylum seekers in Penally camp in Pembrokeshire contrasts with the heart-warming response of local groups who support them as they arrive in the community. Winter is upon us and it remains unclear whether the camp was ever used by the Ministry of Defence during the winter months in the past. The camp is located in a remote rural location, raising questions of whether the Home Office can provide duty of care services effectively. Given those questions, will the Minister commit to set a date for an inspection of the camp by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration?

Chris Philp: It is not for me to tell the chief inspector how to conduct his inspections and his affairs, but I would say that Penally has been set up in a thoughtful  and careful way. We have had to use such emergency accommodation because during coronavirus the number of people we are accommodating has gone up very dramatically, from 48,000 to about 60,000, as the cessations or move-ons we would ordinarily do have been substantially reduced. In the case of negative cessations, they are currently paused entirely across the whole United Kingdom. So that is the reason why it is organised as it is. As I said earlier, if Members, and in particular local authorities and devolved Administrations, want to see the use of hotels and places such as Penally reduced, supporting the Home Office in procuring more dispersed accommodation is the way to do that.

Stephen Doughty: On accommodation, Clearsprings Ready Homes, which I believe manages the Penally camp and has also managed accommodation in my constituency for many years, made multimillion-pound profits over the past few years, paid one of its directors £147,000 last year—that is more than Dominic Cummings—and took a £2 million dividend in 2019. Yet we hear of squalid, degrading and unsafe conditions at its properties. I have raised those issues over many years with Ministers and officials, but it has been awarded a generous new contract with the Home Office. Why was it awarded that contract? How is it value for money? What will the Minister do to bear down on those appalling conditions?

Chris Philp: The contracts for the three service providers were awarded after a thorough process to evaluate the bids and they are, of course, subject to ongoing scrutiny on issues such as quality of accommodation, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Generally speaking, the accommodation provided is of good quality and it compares very favourably with accommodation provided by some other countries. However, if he would like to write to me with any specific issues he wants to raise in relation to particular units of accommodation in his constituency, I will of course make sure they are investigated.

Felicity Buchan: I am aware that many asylum seekers are being housed in hotels in central London. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that we are looking to find a long-term solution?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is quite right that hotels are being used in central London and, indeed, in other cities. That is a consequence of the very short-term pressures created by coronavirus. It is our intention, as we go into next year and as the coronavirus pandemic abates, to get hotel numbers back down again. For financial and other reasons, it is not ideal to have to use hotels and we would like to phase out their use as quickly as we possibly can in the coming year.

Mohammad Yasin: On Christmas eve, the first asylum seekers are due to arrive at the remote site of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, where they will be housed in prefab-style accommodation. We have seen a similar approach in Kent and Wales, where Army barracks are being used, and other sites are planned. That is a lot of activity for what we are told is a temporary arrangement. Will the Minister explain the new policy approach to housing asylum seekers  in hostile environments and tell me exactly when it  will end?

Chris Philp: It is not a hostile environment. The accommodation meets the required standards. As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), we are having to provide additional units because the number of people being supported has gone up enormously as a result of coronavirus. Far fewer cessation notices have been served this year than would ordinarily be the case, because we are mindful of the welfare of the people concerned and the wider population. We do intend to scale up the cessations as quickly as we safely can. As we do that, the pressure on numbers will reduce correspondingly.

Bob Blackman: I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to preventing the criminal gangs from preying on the vulnerable people who make the dangerous crossings from France to the UK. One of the concerns that we all have is about how he will speed up the decision-making process so that those who are entitled to asylum in this country can be speedily resettled, and those who are not entitled to be here can be returned to a safe place as fast as possible. Will he advise the House on what action he will take in the new year to speed up the process so that decisions are made quickly?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is right that speeding up the decision making is in everybody’s interests. It will mean that fewer people will need to be accommodated, it will be good for those people who get a positive decision, and for those who have a negative decision we can proceed with removal. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic has had a negative effect on decision making, but it is now being rapidly ramped up again. We intend to recruit more asylum decision makers in the new year, and we also intend to look at ways of deploying technology, so better IT systems, to speed up processes and decision making. I recently visited Lunar House in Croydon, close to my constituency, where many of the teams who make the decisions are based. The spirit of my hon. Friend’s question is absolutely right, and we certainly intend to act upon it.

Dave Doogan: This afternoon the Minister has sought to assure Members that the changes to this regime will protect applicants from destitution, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the level of destitution in the UK, among UK citizens, is set to double to 2 million families. Can he explain how he expects Members to accept that the Government will protect asylum seekers from destitution, when they cannot protect 2 million UK nationals?

Chris Philp: We are protecting asylum seekers from destitution at the moment. I have already pointed out that we are spending in the region of £1 billion a year supporting the various cohorts of asylum seekers, and the accommodation and cash allowances that they are provided with have been tested by the courts and found to be suitable, so there is very clear evidence that the Government’s work in this area does the trick. The hon. Gentleman asked about wider issues, so I will just point out that measures such as elevating the minimum wage and increasing the tax-free allowance have done huge amounts over the past five or six years to combat poverty and create prosperity. As the economy recovers next year, after coronavirus, that will continue.

Scott Benton: I know that both my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary are doing everything in their power to stop the illegal crossings on the south coast and the continuing abuse of our immigration and asylum system, but it is perfectly clear that we do need long-term reform. When can we expect the full details of how the Government intend to reform our currently broken system so that the UK is no longer a soft touch?

Chris Philp: I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We intend to introduce legislation in the first half of next year, but that will of course be consulted on, so that everyone with an interest in the matter, including my hon. Friend and his constituents, can propose ideas and we can make sure the legislation has the desired effect.

Sam Tarry: During this transition period, the Dublin regulations have given the UK temporary power to transfer refugees and migrants back to the EU country from which they arrived. As the ever-shifting deadline looms, I understand that the Home Office has sped up its asylum seeker processing in an attempt to deport vulnerable immigrants, including suspected trafficking victims, before the year’s end. I have dealt with a lot of cases of trafficking victims in Ilford South. I seek reassurance from the Minister that he will seriously consider putting proper screening in place so that anything that is unlawful and could end up creating serious harm can be stopped. Will he consider ending deportation until robust and proper screening is implemented?

Chris Philp: There is a robust screening process in place, via the single competent authority and the national referral mechanism. That is working, I think it is fair to say, extremely effectively, so the risks the hon. Member identifies do not currently exist. This is a matter that is frequently tested in the courts, so we will almost certainly not be stopping removals and deportations. The Government are determined to apply the law, whether to people who have failed in their asylum claims or dangerous criminals who pose a threat to our constituents. I hope the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman will join us in supporting the proper operation of our law and protecting our constituents.

Joy Morrissey: I welcome the steps the Government have taken to deter dangerous journeys that put human lives at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a long-standing principle that asylum seekers should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity, in the first safe country they reach? Will he also confirm that safe countries still include France, Italy, Greece, and so on?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is right. European Union countries, including the ones she lists, are obviously manifestly safe and civilised countries. People who find themselves in need of protection in those countries should claim asylum there, as she says. They should not attempt dangerous crossings of the English channel, facilitated by ruthless criminals, and every single Member of this House should send the same message.

Tan Dhesi: These major, fundamental changes to the immigration rules were laid last week, incredibly, with zero consultation  with stakeholders such as local authorities and the asylum sector. In the last two years the number of people waiting for longer than six months for a decision has increased almost threefold, with nearly 40,000 people having to wait at least that long. Surely the changes risk creating even greater inefficiency and delays, with people having to wait to find out whether the UK will even consider their asylum claim?

Chris Philp: The changes are designed to ensure that we can enter into agreements with other countries to replace Dublin. They are designed to ensure that people who unnecessarily come to the United Kingdom—often clandestinely, often dangerously and often facilitated by criminals—do not do so, because they could instead claim asylum somewhere safe, such as France or Germany. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that that is the right thing to do and what we should be encouraging people to do.
On the timing of asylum decision making, as I mentioned in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), we want to speed things up, but unfortunately coronavirus has impacted decision making, as it has impacted so many elements of the public service system. However, we are focused on making sure the system speeds up, and that is a top priority for the coming year.

Richard Holden: I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for everything they are doing in this area. Does the Minister agree that the attitude of many Opposition Members in objecting to the deportation of convicted criminals, including murderers and rapists, harms the case of genuine refugees? Will he act to overhaul the rules, which see some lawyers abusing the system, to the detriment of taxpayers in North West Durham and across the country, and also genuine refugees?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We saw in our debate a couple of weeks ago some Opposition Members, astonishingly, standing up for the rights of people who have been convicted of extremely serious criminal offences, instead of standing up for the rights of victims or the rights of our constituents to be protected against the harm that those dangerous individuals represent. He is also right when he points out that unmeritorious claims crowd out, or push further back in the queue, the claims of those who have every right to protection. That is why we are determined to legislate next year to ensure that those whose claims are genuine are treated quickly and fairly, but that where people do not have a good claim and are abusing the system, the system is firm and rejects those claims.

Chi Onwurah: As a city of sanctuary, Newcastle seeks to support those fleeing war and persecution, but all too often the Home Office places them in accommodation that is unsuitable, inadequate or plain disgusting, and where they may be targeted by far-right groups, as happened recently in Newcastle, and then leaves them for months or years without proper consideration of their case, at great cost to the mental wellbeing of those who are already vulnerable. Am I right to think that the Minister’s solution to this is now to arbitrarily reduce the cases considered, rather than actually fixing the process?

Chris Philp: The Government’s policy, as I have laid out, is to do everything we can to make sure that where people wishing to claim asylum are already in a safe, civilised country like France, Germany or Spain, they claim asylum there and do not attempt a dangerous journey facilitated by ruthless criminals. That is the right thing to do, and I would hope to have the hon. Lady’s support in doing it.

Lee Anderson: The people of Ashfield and Eastwood are fed up with seeing illegal economic migrants leaving safe countries such as France to claim asylum in the UK while filling the pockets of greedy lawyers. I welcome the immediate steps the Government are taking to overhaul our broken asylum system, but the people of Ashfield and Eastwood want to know what steps my hon. Friend is taking in the longer term to fix this system once and for all.

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the system does not work currently in the way that it should. People are able to make repeated, unmeritorious and sometimes vexatious claims to frustrate the system and prevent removal. For that reason, we will legislate in the first half of next year to make sure that the system is fundamentally fixed and fundamentally reformed in a way that will give his constituents the confidence they have every right to expect.

Chris Stephens: The Minister will be aware that Glasgow has housed and accommodated asylum seekers for almost 20 years—something of which we are very proud. Can he say a bit more about how those who may be considered to be inadmissible under the new rules will be supported and accommodated? Will they, for example, be placed in detention centres, camps, barracks and hotels—he will be aware that a group of doctors has written to the Department with concerns about the conditions for asylum seekers in these sorts of accommodation—or is he going to rule out those sorts of accommodation going forward?

Chris Philp: Glasgow does accommodate a large number of asylum seekers. We work very closely with Glasgow City Council and the Communities and Local Government Secretary in the Scottish Government on that topic. Glasgow is the only Scottish authority to receive asylum seekers. It would ease the pressure on Glasgow, and indeed across the United Kingdom, if other Scottish local authorities were able to accommodate asylum seekers as well. In terms of the type of accommodation provided, the inadmissible cohort, although inadmissible, will be entitled to accommodation, as I have said, and the support that goes with that. We will make sure that the support they receive fully complies with all our legal and moral obligations.

Richard Fuller: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for asking this question. The vast immigration detention estate, in all its forms, is a standing indictment of our failed immigration system, which, as the Minister knows, every day carries with it a risk. He is right to focus on reform, although I would say that the goal is not so much to be fast and furious as to be fair and accurate.
My question relates to the security of some of the barracks accommodation and other accommodation that is being provided. There have been some reports of asylum seekers leaving these estates and not coming back. What inquiries has the Minister undertaken, and what reassurance can he give to communities where these sites are located?

Chris Philp: The size of the immigration detention estate has actually shrunk considerably over the past five or six years. I think I am right in saying that it has reduced in size by, very approximately, 50%. Detention is used sparingly and only as a necessary precursor to removal. On the accommodation for people seeking asylum, this is not detention. The people are not detained and are free to come and go as they choose, but obviously those operating the sites keep a very careful eye on them. For example, there is a process of signing in and signing out, and if people are not back on the site by 10 pm each evening, then inquiries are made. Although the people in the centres are not detained, very careful measures are taken to understand their whereabouts to make sure that nothing untoward happens in the local communities. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as reassurance, but I would be happy to discuss these issues further, particularly in the Yarl’s Wood context, if he would like to do that.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response to the questions so far. The changes explain that an asylum claim can be reinstated after a “reasonable period of time” if another safe country is unable to admit that person. Can the Minister outline what a reasonable period is, what support will be given in the interim period, and what processes are in place to support people whose claims are deemed inadmissible in the United Kingdom?

Chris Philp: I can assure the hon. Member that while the process unfolds of seeking another country to receive the person, support will be made available to avoid the risk of destitution. The reasonable length of time taken to secure the agreement of another country will be laid out in guidance shortly, but it will be a matter of a few months; it will not be an extended period.

James Sunderland: Britain’s broken asylum system is currently costing the taxpayer over £1 billion per year. Does the Minister agree that a decisive push is now needed comprehensively to deal with and process more quickly the 60,000 asylum seekers currently in supported accommodation, and to disincentivise others from making the perilous journey across the channel?

Chris Philp: Yes, I do agree. In fact, some of those 60,000 are people whose asylum claims are not pending but whose asylum claims have been rejected, and where the legal process has been convoluted and removal has not been effected. One of the things that we intend to do in our Bill is ensure that failed asylum seekers can be more quickly returned to their safe country of origin, which, of course, is what should happen. My hon. Friend is right that we need to speed up asylum decision making and get these numbers down. That is fair to individuals who have a valid asylum claim, but also to the taxpayer, upon whom otherwise falls an extremely large financial burden. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s sentiments.

Vicky Foxcroft: Lewisham is proud to be a borough of sanctuary, and the council has stated that it will not collaborate with the Home Office in enforcing new immigration rules that make rough sleeping a legal ground to cancel or refuse permission to stay in the UK. As we enter the coldest months of the year, how can the Minister justify these rules when they risk deterring rough sleepers from seeking help and threaten to put many lives at risk?

Chris Philp: The Government have been extremely clear that the rules on rough sleeping to which the hon. Lady refers only apply where the person concerned has persistently refused offers of help and support, and are engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour. It is expected to be used in an extremely small number of circumstances. Of course everybody will be offered help and support to get off the streets. The Government have invested about £700 million this year alone in helping people to get off the streets and into accommodation. She mentions Lewisham’s desire to assist. One way in which the London Borough of Lewisham can certainly assist is by taking on some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are arriving in Kent. I look forward to hearing from her and from the leader of her authority as to exactly how many of those children they propose to take in over Christmas.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for approaching an hour. We are now going to suspend for three minutes for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, and the safe exit and arrival of Members of Parliament.
Sitting suspended.

Uyghur Slave Labour: Xinjiang

Iain Duncan Smith: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what the Government are doing to deal with the overwhelming evidence of the Chinese Government’s use of Uyghur slave labour in Xinjiang province.

Nigel Adams: Evidence of forced Uyghur labour within Xinjiang and in other parts of China is credible; it is growing and it is deeply troubling to the UK Government. Yesterday’s media reporting, based in part on Chinese Government documents, suggests that forced labour is occurring on a significant scale. The reports raise particular concerns regarding the cotton industry, with serious implications for international and UK supply chains. We have consistently made clear our view that all businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chains in Xinjiang should conduct appropriate due diligence to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support, or risk being seen to support, any human rights violations or abuses.
In our national action plan, implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, we set out our expectation that UK businesses should respect human rights across their operations and their international supply relationships. While there is an important role for Government, businesses have a clear responsibility to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour. We have issued clear guidance and held regular meetings with businesses and industry stakeholders to underline our concerns and the importance of thorough due diligence. We have also financed projects to build the evidence base and increase awareness of the risks. This includes the high-profile report “Uyghurs for sale”, which has led several companies to take action in respect of their supply chains.
I have updated the House on a number of occasions on the UK’s international leadership and extensive diplomatic activity to hold China to account. Most recently, alongside Germany, we brought together a total of 39 countries in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in October. That sent a powerful message to China on the breadth of international concern, including on the issue of forced labour. In September, we devoted our entire national statement at the UN Human Rights Council to China, again raising forced labour.
In summary, the UK has taken the lead internationally. We have shone a light on the evidence of what is going on, to raise awareness and urge action, and we have provided clear guidance to business. However, the Government acknowledge that, in light of the gross human rights abuses being committed, there is more to be done. That is why, in September, the Home Secretary announced plans to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is co-ordinating extensive work right across Government to address this deeply concerning issue.
I will conclude by reassuring the House that we recognise and share the depth of cross-party concern on the human rights situation in Xinjiang. We have made that concern abundantly clear to the Chinese Government,  and we expect China to live up to its responsibilities under international law and to the commitments it has made as a leading member of the international community. Continuing to stand up for those whose human rights are oppressed remains a top priority for this Government.

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me make it clear that this question is not about being anti-Chinese—far from it. It is about the abuses of the dictatorial Chinese Communist Government and its ruling elite. On Monday, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China adviser Adrian Zenz published research taken from internal Chinese Government files, which showed that in 2018 the prefectures of Aksu and Hotan sent 210,000 workers via coercive labour transfer to forcibly pick cotton for a Chinese paramilitary organisation, the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. That is, in effect, slave labour. Furthermore, Mr Zenz and IPAC have also shown that the Chinese Government forced Uyghur women into sterilisation. As a result, the Uyghur population in those regions fell by as much as 84% between 2015 and 2018. That is action verging, I believe, on genocide.
Meanwhile, the peaceful proponents of democracy in Hong Kong are locked up and forced to flee their homes; Christians and Falun Gong have suffered organ harvesting, while half a million Tibetans have been forced into labour camps. The Chinese Communist party is oppressive at home and bullying abroad—just look at the its actions in bullying Australia for calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of covid, and the revelations over the weekend that supposedly secure institutions such as even the Foreign Office have been penetrated not only by CCP members, but by members of the fanatical United Front. The security issues are paramount.
I ask my hon. Friend when he will announce that those responsible for all these evils will be sanctioned under the Magnitsky regimes. We have been going on and on about that, without answer. Will he commit to reviewing all our dependency on China and to putting that on a secure basis? May I ask what he is doing now about the penetration by those United Front entryists into the embassy and other secure institutions in the United Kingdom? Will his Department support the forthcoming genocide amendment that is now in the other place?
I simply say to my hon. Friend that we must condemn—not just criticise, but condemn—the actions being taken by this abusive Government. We have learned in the past that appeasement does not work. That is why we must take this head-on, right now, before it becomes too big to manage.

Nigel Adams: I thank my right hon. Friend both for securing this urgent question and for the work he does with colleagues cross-party on this important issue. He raised the question of members of the CCP and United Front getting access to some of our institutions. First and foremost, we protect our most sensitive information by ensuring that local staff do not have access to it, regardless of whether they hold any party affiliation, and we undertake robust vetting of staff. We value the work of local staff immensely and they help to promote UK prosperity, but, as he knows, there are 91 million members of the Chinese Communist party; it is a mass-membership organisation at the heart of Chinese government, business, academia and social life.
My right hon. Friend also raised the question of sanctions. Of course, that is an issue that we have discussed on a regular basis since announcing our regime in July. We are constantly and carefully considering further designations under that regime, and we will keep all potential listings under review.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the amendment to the Trade Bill in the other place. Our commitment to upholding human rights and opposing genocide in all its forms is unequivocal. The Trade Bill applies only to trade agreements that have already been signed with the EU that we are rolling over as an independent trading nation. None of the agreements that we have signed, which have been scrutinised by Parliament, have eroded any domestic standards in relation to human rights or equalities.

Lisa Nandy: Yesterday, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis described the treatment of the Uyghur people as an “unfathomable mass atrocity”. He added:
“Let no person say that the responsibility lies with others.”
The shocking BBC revelations must be the trigger for action, following accounts of forced sterilisations, beatings and re-education camps, which undeniably share features of genocide.
Yesterday, it became clear that Britain is deeply involved in this story. We are tied to the Uyghur people through our global supply chains, importing cotton born of forced labour into our markets and, in doing so, unwittingly helping to sustain these appalling mass atrocities. I want to hear about action today. The Government must introduce Magnitsky sanctions and work with our allies to maximise their effect. Has the Minister discussed targeted sanctions with partners in North America, Europe and Australia?
In October, the Foreign Secretary said he needed to “gather the evidence”, but by December no Xinjiang officials were included in the updated Magnitsky list. Without further evidence, we will not make progress, so how are the Government going to work with allies to pressure China to allow the UN access to Xinjiang? Has the Minister considered the use of the 1984 convention against torture, a potential international legal process that does not present the same jurisdictional challenges facing the International Criminal Court or face the same evidence bar?
When the BBC asked British companies to confirm that cotton from Xinjiang was not used in their supply chains, only four were able to do so. If that does not fire our sense of urgency, what on earth will? The review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 concluded that for many companies it was simply a “tick-box exercise”, with 40% not complying at all. It recommended enforcement and stronger processes. What are the Government waiting for?
Can the Minister confirm today that no public body, whether it is the NHS, the armed forces or his own Department, uses cotton from Xinjiang? If he cannot, will he tell us what he is going to do to ensure that the Modern Slavery Act covers public bodies and that not a penny of public money is spent on allowing the mass persecution of the Uyghur to continue?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I share the Chief Rabbi’s serious concerns about the gross violations of human rights that are being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims—and other minorities, it is fair to say—in Xinjiang.
The hon. Lady is right to mention the report. We have repeatedly urged businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chains in the region to ensure that they conduct the appropriate due diligence—to ensure that those activities do not support human rights violations or abuses. We have reinforced that message through engagement with businesses, industry groups and other stakeholders. Of course we work internationally in our co-operation on these issues; we were able to pull together 39 countries at the UN to support our statement.
On the Modern Slavery Act, incidentally, the UK is the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations. The Home Office has announced a series of measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act, including extending transparency obligations to certain public bodies, which the hon. Lady mentioned, and those measures will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can also tell her that the FCDO is co-ordinating extensive further work across Government to address this deeply concerning issue, which we acknowledge.

Thomas Tugendhat: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This report by Adrian Zenz is extremely powerful and makes clear and sobering reading. I am sure the Minister will have followed the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday, where we heard from Uyghur activists—one in Europe and one in the United States—as well as human rights lawyers and a UN expert. They all made clear their view on the human rights violations that we are witnessing today.
The Minister has heard the call for Magnitsky sanctions to be urgently applied and not merely promised, as we have sadly heard too much in the House. Will he commit to ensure that the resources of the Foreign Office at home and abroad will help companies to ensure that they track slave products and slave labour through their supply chains and that Her Majesty’s Government will help them to inspect factories and supply routes around the world?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right. That is why we will be taking measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. As I mentioned, the FCDO is co-ordinating further extensive work. We are working right across Departments to ensure that we have the correct response. That involves supporting businesses, which do an awful lot of trade in that part of the world, and we have been making it absolutely clear that they need to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour, otherwise there will very likely be consequences. He knows that sanctions are being constantly and carefully considered. They also need to be developed responsibly and on the basis of evidence. It is not appropriate to speculate on any individuals who may or may not be sanctioned in the future.

Alyn Smith: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on bringing this important issue to the House. I am pleased to follow three very strong   contributions that I agree with. There is common ground here and a common effort, so I do not propose to cover that ground again. I will boil it down to two concrete questions for the Minister.
The Minister is right to say that companies have a primary responsibility for their own due diligence, to ensure that they are not profiting from slave labour, but there has been a lot of carrot, and it is time for some stick. The BBC has shown up the Government’s inaction in auditing UK companies’ involvement in and potential profiting from slavery, so I repeat my call for a Government audit of UK companies involved in this. I was struck by his comments to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) about the FCDO’s work across Departments to have parallel efforts on Government procurement. Could we have a statement to the House specifically on those efforts in early course?

Nigel Adams: We will be able to update the House on that cross-Government work in due course—likely in the new year. The hon. Gentleman says that we are behind the curve. I would politely mention that the UK being the first country to require businesses to report how they identify and address modern slavery should be to this Government’s credit. The Home Office made it clear in September that we intend to strengthen those laws. He will have to wait a little bit longer in terms of those actions being brought to the House.

Nusrat Ghani: I want to add my weight to the Chief Rabbi’s intervention, which exposes the abuse of the Uyghur. The Chief Rabbi also said that there must be an
“urgent, independent and unfettered investigation into what is happening.”
Can the Minister comment on that? As crimes against humanity by the Chinese Government grow, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned to explain what is happening?
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, on which I sit, is conducting an inquiry into UK business supply chain links to Xinjiang. We are now implicated in this, and we have to take action, not speak powerfully on this issue. Finally, may I encourage the Minister to reach out to the incoming Biden Administration, to learn more about the United States Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and see how we can collaborate to prevent the abuse of Uyghur men, the exploitation of Uyghur women and the destruction of the lives of Uyghur children?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to raise a number of points. We are seriously concerned about a number of gross violations of human rights that are being perpetrated against Uyghur men and women and other minorities in Xinjiang. The Chief Rabbi is spot on, and we share his concerns about these violations that are being perpetrated. As I said, we are working internationally and co-operating with our partners on this issue. I am hopeful that my hon. Friend will draw some comfort in the new year from the new measures that we bring forward.

Nigel Evans: Can Members please focus on shorter questions? I would like to get everybody in.

Layla Moran: As people shop for their Christmas presents, we are all grateful to be able to buy products from our fifth largest trading partner, China, but I am sure that many people would be appalled to know that by shopping for some brands, they are inadvertently spending their money on such abhorrent practices as slave labour. To help consumers make wise choices now, will the Government create a publicly available watchlist of companies of concern? Will the Minister consider a total ban on any products that are linked in any way to human rights abuses?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for the way that she engages with FCDO. Most parties are on the same page in this situation, and our officials meet businesses and industry stakeholders regularly to make them aware of the scale of forced labour issues. I ask her to have a bit of patience into the new year, when we will bring to the House the next stage of support and action via the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We will also be able to talk a little more about cross-Government work.
I forgot to answer one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), about the Chinese ambassador. He has been summoned to the Foreign Office to meet the permanent under-secretary, and following the publication of the report in the last couple of days, yesterday we made our views known strongly to the embassy.

Liam Fox: The principle of non-intervention in another country’s internal affairs is generally a good one, but surely it is applicable only when people are able to choose the Government whom they live under, and where their rights and freedoms are respected. Does my hon. Friend agree that with respect to totalitarian states there is a duty on all strong and free nations to speak out for the weak and forgotten, even when politically uncomfortable or inconvenient?

Nigel Adams: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. We are not dealing with a country with a normal party system. We have long worked with international partners on this issue, and we led the first joint international statements at the third committee of the General Assembly last year, as well as in June at the UN Human Right Council. As I said, to get 39 countries to join our statement at the third committee about the situation in Xinjiang was no mean feat but, as ever on these issues, my right hon. Friend is spot on.

Jim Shannon: This House is united in its joint calls for our Government to act and respond robustly. I first raised the treatment of the Uyghurs in this House in 2015, yet here we are five years later and the situation remains every bit as desperate. I know it is not the personal responsibility of the Minister, but I believe we have a moral obligation to use whatever channels are available to ensure that all is done to penalise China. We must apply as much pressure as we can to help those who are being persecuted only because of their religion and their faith.

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman is a long-term champion of freedom of religion and belief. We are deeply concerned about the persecution of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners, and I know he cares deeply about that. We are concerned about the actions that are going on, and as the UK we are proud that we stand up and speak out when we see such violations occur. I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to bring such cases to the House, and if he would like us to follow up any specific cases, we are more than happy to do so.

Anthony Mangnall: I commend the Government for the approach they have taken thus far and for their intention to ensure that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is made more robust to tackle this issue. With that in mind, can I push for an extension to the Magnitsky Act to be placed on those Chinese individuals we are able to identify? Can I also ask whether the Government might recognise the independent Uyghur tribunal set up by Sir Geoffrey Nice, which is due to report next year?

Nigel Adams: We are liaising. We are very much aware of the work my hon. Friend refers to, and our officials and Ministers are having discussions in that regard. He mentions sanctions. As he knows, we are constantly and carefully considering further designations, and we will keep all potential listings under review.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the Minister, who I have a lot of time for, that we have all-party support on this issue? China is really waging a war against democracy and human rights —not just in Hong Kong and China but worldwide. Is it not about time that we sent President Xi Jinping a strong message that we will not continue to allow investment in our country or to allow wealthy members of the politburo to come to the classic luxury shops in this country—when they are open? Can we not send a stronger message now that we will not put up with this any longer and that our hearts and minds are with the poor persecuted people working as slave labourers?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, trade with China is important to the UK. China is the UK’s fourth largest trading partner, and total bilateral trade was worth over £76 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 2 2020. However, as we continue to strive for that positive relationship, we will not sacrifice our values or our security. We are absolutely clear-sighted about challenges, and as we continue to engage we will always protect our national interest, speak up and hold China to its international commitments and promises.

Edward Leigh: In the 19th century, the House of Commons established its legacy on behalf of the enslaved and persecuted people in the world with the slavery and emancipation Acts. Is the Minister aware, after these questions, that whatever action he takes, the House of Commons will give him full support? The Chinese Government do not care a damn about mere words; only action will persuade them. Will he therefore summon the UK fashion industry to tell it that, unless it can prove that cotton is not picked with slave labour, it will stop importing from  China? Will he also pursue the Magnitsky sanctions point, and will he, after Brexit, pursue with our allies the point on trade sanctions?

Nigel Adams: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, as he has on other occasions. Of course we will continue to call out China when it abuses its international obligations. We have announced new measures that will strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. As soon as an opportunity arises, we will bring those to the House. I would ask my right hon. Friend to be a little patient, into the new year, on the other measures we hope to bring forward following our consultations across Government.

Rachel Hopkins: The abhorrent persecution of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang by the Chinese Government must receive sustained international condemnation. The UK Government must be a key player in that and must not sit back and let the abuses continue. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the appointment of a UN special rapporteur for the investigation of forced labour and ethnic persecution in Xinjiang?

Nigel Adams: We have been leading on this issue internationally, and I referred to the 38 other countries that joined us at the UN in one of the many statements that we have made on this issue. However, any action we take at the UN has to have an opportunity of succeeding, and there is no point bringing forward measures that will potentially give the intended target a propaganda coup.

Christian Wakeford: Like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, I have been shocked, saddened and appalled by the plight of the Uyghurs in China. This was reinforced yesterday by the words of the Chief Rabbi. I would like to inquire what practical steps the Minister and the Foreign Secretary are taking to hold China to account for its disturbing and abhorrent actions.

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to raise this again. We welcome the Chief Rabbi’s intervention, and we share his serious concerns about the violations that are being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are playing a leading role internationally in holding China to account for these violations. We have led or co-ordinated multiple joint statements on this issue. This groundswell of international concern does send a powerful message, and I can assure him that it is increasing the pressure on the Chinese authorities to change course.

Marion Fellows: As future post-Brexit trade deals are negotiated, can the Minister confirm that the UK will not back down on its moral and ethical principles to secure any economic gains and that China agreeing to put an end to violations of its citizens’ human rights is an unmoveable precondition to the UK signing such a deal?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Lady raises a really important point. We have a high level of ambition for our trade and investment partnership with China. We want to work with China to increase trade and investment flows,  to make sure that our companies can get market access and to set a mutual ambition for a future relationship, but as we strive for that positive future relationship, we will not sacrifice either our values or our security.

Andrew Gwynne: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question. The treatment of the Uyghurs is atrocious. Will the Minister confirm that the imposition of measures intended to prevent births within an ethnic or religious group is expressly forbidden under the terms of article II(d) of the UN convention on genocide, and will he seriously consider what international actions can be taken beyond joint statements to respond to the human rights abuses being committed in Xinjiang?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to this. We debated that very issue some months ago in the Chamber. Of course, we abhor any of those practices. He refers to the term “genocide”. That very much has a specific definition in international law. It is our long-standing policy that any judgment as to whether crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred is absolutely a matter for judicial decision.

Alicia Kearns: The ever-increasing body of evidence of industrialised atrocities by the Chinese Communist party brings into stark focus my calls for the creation of an atrocity prevention unit at the FCDO. Does my hon. Friend agree that, internationally, we must ensure that the cost to the CCP’s reputation and economy is so great that it finally ceases the appalling genocide being committed against the Uyghur people, and what steps is he taking to magnify those costs to the greatest extent possible?

Nigel Adams: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her continued work in this area. I agree that it is absolutely vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation in Xinjiang. She knows that we have taken the lead internationally on this issue. We have gone from 28 countries supporting a joint statement in June to 39 countries supporting a statement at the UN in October. This does send a powerful message to China, and if international businesses continue to take the action we are urging to ensure their supply chains are free of forced labour—I note that a number of prominent UK businesses have already done so—that will also send an important message to China.

Navendu Mishra: Why has it taken the FCDO so long to apply the Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese Government officials responsible for grave human rights abuses against the Uyghur people—we have heard from other Members what has happened in Tibet and what is happening in Hong Kong—given the speed in which the Minister has said that they added sanctions to Belarussian officials previously?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has heard it multiple times at this Dispatch Box, that we are constantly and carefully considering further designations under the sanctions regime, but they have  to be developed with absolute evidence in a responsible way. It is not right to speculate or rush into these measures. There is a pretty good chance of seeing asset flight if that is the case, but I can assure him that we are very carefully considering any further designations.

David Johnston: In the 21st century, businesses put a great premium on showing that they are socially responsible, yet it is impossible to be one if you use products that are the result of forced labour, so does my hon. Friend agree that our businesses need to establish immediately whether they are using anything that is a product of forced labour, and if they are, to cease doing so immediately?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to raise this. I agree that there is a role for Government, but businesses have a vital role to play in ensuring that their supply chains are free of forced labour. We repeatedly urge businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chain in the region to do so and to conduct that due diligence. We are going to make enhancements to the Modern Slavery Act. We have reinforced this message through very close engagement with businesses, industry groups and other stakeholders.

Andrew Murrison: Well done, Chief Rabbi, for being one of the most authentic voices to speak out in support of the Uyghur people. Well done, Ministers, too, for taking a lead in October at the United Nations. Will the Minister persuade not only his colleagues, but the Governments that he persuaded in October to support the Uyghur people, to look at national public procurement supply chains to ensure that, while it is difficult to persuade the fashion industry to eschew dubiously sourced cotton, national Governments are doing everything in their power to ensure that products in their supply chains—I am thinking particularly of uniforms—have nothing to do with cotton sourced from countries that may be using forced labour?

Nigel Adams: My right hon. Friend is right. As I said, we are working cross-Government and we are working intensively with our international partners. It is absolutely the case that we should be bringing pressure to bear on those companies that are operating in the region. This is an area on which we will have a bit more to say in the new year, but I give him my assurance that we are working very co-operatively with our international partners on these issues, as well as across Government.

Rushanara Ali: Some of the comments that the Minister has made remind me of his predecessor’s responses to the situation in Myanmar against Rohingya Muslims. It shows that the failure of our Government to take a strong international leadership role to secure justice sends a dangerous message to repressive Governments around the world that ethnic cleansing and genocide against Muslims and other minorities is an acceptable policy tool. That is the message that he is sending, so it is time that our Government stop making excuses. I appreciate what he is doing, but he needs to look at the record of action and inaction in the past and learn from that. That is why I call on him once again to heed the advice of Members across the House and start to apply sanctions—Magnitsky sanctions —and to seek a UN investigation into what is happening,  as well as supporting the International Court of Justice case on genocide prevention led by the Gambia in relation to the Rohingya Muslims, because it is just not acceptable for our Government to continue to make excuses.

Nigel Adams: We are not making excuses. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady and we have spoken at great length on these issues, both inside and outside the Chamber. We are taking a lead; if that was not the case, a rising number of countries would not be supporting our statements at the UN. We are of course looking very closely at the case in Myanmar—we have discussed it face-to-face on a number of occasions and will continue to do.

Kieran Mullan: I understand that these things are difficult, but I encourage the Minister to persuade our allies that, whatever the difficulties and costs of tackling this and other problems now, they will only go up. The sooner we deal with these issues, the easier they will be to tackle. On this particular issue, what steps can we take to ensure—not just through guidance—that UK companies are not benefiting from slave labour?

Nigel Adams: Like many right hon. and hon. Members, my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We constantly urge businesses involved in investing in this part of the world to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour and to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support, or give the impression that they support, forced labour. We constantly talk to industry groups, as well as directly to businesses. It is worth pointing out that we have financed projects to increase awareness of how international supply chains may contribute to human rights violations or abuses in Xinjiang.

Carol Monaghan: Concentration camps, forced labour, medical sterilisations —disturbingly, we have seen all this before. Until garment retailers and Xinjiang officials act, will the Minister legislate to require UK garment retailers to show on labelling if cotton is sourced from forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang, so that consumers can decide for themselves which brands they wish to support?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We constantly raise serious concerns about the gross violations of human rights to which she refers. As I have said, we raised the deeply concerning latest new evidence directly with the Chinese embassy yesterday. I urge her to have a little patience in terms of the new measures on supply chains that the Government are going to bring forward.

Laura Farris: It was disappointing to read this week that the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court had declined to investigate China in respect of the persecution of Uyghur Muslims on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction to do so, and we know that the UK tribunal led by Geoffrey Nice has no legal teeth of its own, so will my hon. Friend consider working with our many international partners to seek a special resolution at the UN and perhaps even establish a specialist tribunal, so that in time those responsible for these crimes can be brought to justice?

Nigel Adams: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. A whole range of options is available to us that involve working with the UN. As I mentioned in a previous answer, whatever steps we take have to have a realistic chance of being successful in that particular forum. We will continue to work with our international partners, as she suggests; working alongside our international partners is the best approach in this regard.

Sam Tarry: We have rightly heard from both sides of the House condemnation of the atrocious, barbaric and, quite frankly, harrowing treatment of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Members from all parties who have been working on the National Security and Investment Bill over the past month heard evidence from none another than Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who sketched out a very complex picture that clearly showed that for far too long successive Governments have placed economic interests, including with China, far ahead of our human rights obligations. Will the Minister consider that and say whether he will look again at our relationship with China and not prioritise economic interests ahead of either national security or human rights?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Obviously trade with China is important to us. As I said earlier, it is the fourth largest trading partner. It is important to help UK firms to overcome the economic challenges of covid and ensure our long-term prosperity, but I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we will not sacrifice either our values or our security in that regard.

Bob Blackman: Clearly the footage shown on the BBC earlier this week showed factories located right next door to prison camps in Xinjiang. That is very disturbing and suggests very strongly that the people working in those factories are in the prison camps, and are not doing so willingly. It is also clear that the conditions under which people are living are inhumane. When he sees the Chinese ambassador, will my hon. Friend urge him to accept the need for an independent investigation into the treatment and detention of the Uyghur people, so that we can get to the bottom of this and ensure proper, humane conditions, and make sure that people are paid for the work they do and that they do so voluntarily?

Nigel Adams: We do make this absolutely clear; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the UN Human Rights Commissioner or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang to check the facts to which my hon. Friend refers. We call for that repeatedly in joint statements at UN bodies and we bring this up regularly with the Chinese ambassador to the UK, but I reiterate that it is vital that China allows such access without delay.

Liz Twist: What conversations has the Minister had with his counterpart in China about the treatment of the Uyghur people, and what conversations has he had with counterparts elsewhere to co-ordinate an international response to the human rights abuses being committed against the Uyghur in Xinjiang?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Lady asks a very good question. We regularly have conversations with our international partners, as exemplified by the 39 countries that joined us at the UN, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with his counterpart in China on this very issue.

Felicity Buchan: The human rights violations in China have rightly sparked significant concern in my constituency, not least among the substantial Muslim population in Kensington. Will my hon. Friend commit to me that we will keep up the international pressure, in particular with the incoming US Administration?

Nigel Adams: Of course, it is absolutely key that we keep up the international pressure, working with our international partners, not least the United States and the incoming Administration. We are looking forward to working with the new Administration on all our shared interests, and the issue of Xinjiang and the Uyghur population will be high on our agenda.

Matt Western: I commend the work of the BBC for shining a bright light on these practices. It is a body that often gets a lot of bad press in this Chamber, but it has done a terrific job. Given that 20% of global cotton comes from the area—84% of Chinese cotton that goes into production—it is difficult for businesses to trace the source in their supply chains. What powers do the Government have under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and how are they exercising them? Why have the Government been quick to move on Belarus with Magnitsky sanctions, but slow on China?

Nigel Adams: On the final point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I have said numerous times at this Dispatch Box, we are carefully considering a range of designations under our global human rights regime. We have to do that in a responsible way, based on accurate evidence, and all potential listings in that regard are under review.
In terms of supply chains, we are repeatedly urging businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang, or with parts of their supply chains in that region, to ensure that they conduct the appropriate due diligence to ensure that none of their products, or the supply chains for them, have been involved in forced labour. I politely ask the hon. Gentleman, as I have other hon. Members, to wait until the new year, when we will be able to conclude our cross-Government work and come to the House to put forward some measures that hopefully he will be able to support.

Dean Russell: There is no excuse in the 21st century for slavery to still exist, so will my hon. Friend agree that businesses should hear loud and clear today that they should never profit and see fashionable the opportunity to make money from the slavery and suffering of others? Will he please outline the steps that he is taking to build the largest possible international coalition, including business, to condemn the Chinese action?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation. That has been the focus of all our intensive diplomatic activity on the issue. As I  said, it is reflected in the growth in the number of countries that have joined us, rising from 28 countries last year to 39 countries at the latest Human Rights Council in June.

Rachael Maskell: It is indeed chilling to see those pictures, and to read about what is happening not only in the re-education camps but now in this slave labour report. We have seen a decade of this Government getting closer to China, which has been deeply concerning for many of us. Now the Government are delaying in putting new measures forward—talking about the new year, and not saying when in the new year, or exactly what they will do. We cannot wait. The time is urgent now. People’s lives are being put at risk. Could the Government be clearer on exactly what they are bringing forward and when, and how they will bring more nations on board, because 39 countries are clearly not enough to stop this human rights abuse?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Lady will have to be patient, I am afraid, in terms of the parliamentary time that would allow us to bring forward the changes to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act, for example. She talked about our very recent relationship with China. We want a positive and mature relationship with China, which is a very important member of the international community. Without China, we risk not being able to tackle global challenges, but when we have concerns we will raise them, and where we need to intervene we do.

Jo Gideon: My constituents in Stoke-on-Trent Central are deeply concerned and shocked by reports of forced labour of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Britain’s Modern Slavery Act requires big businesses to detail their anti-slavery efforts annually; however, as my hon. Friend will know, well-meaning words fall short of action. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in modern-day slavery?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend rightly raises the Modern Slavery Act. At the risk of repeating myself, I remind the House that we are the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. As she will know, in September the Home Office announced a series of measures to strengthen the Act, and transparency in thousands of businesses and public body supply chains. That involves extending the reporting requirement to public bodies with a budget of £36 million or more. We want more transparency and comparability by requiring organisations to publish their statement on our new reporting service. We will bring those measures forward at the first opportunity when parliamentary time allows.

Patrick Grady: That is  very good to hear. I wonder whether those requirements will apply to the many organisations that have been handed covid procurement contracts by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues to lots of their different friends. We are all becoming very dependent on the use of  large quantities of personal protective equipment that have been manufactured in China. What steps are the Government taking specifically to ensure integrity in those supply chains?

Nigel Adams: We have taken steps to reduce our dependence on imported PPE. Thankfully, UK manufacturers are now capable of providing 70% of all items of PPE, except gloves, that we expect to use throughout the winter. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that, before the pandemic, just 1% of PPE was produced in the UK. The FCDO is working through our embassy in Beijing to ensure that external due diligence service providers carry out open source checks on Chinese suppliers of medical products produced during the peak of the covid epidemic. All procurement processes were in line with the UK procurement regulations during this time.

Scott Benton: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be absolutely appalled by the credible reports of forced abortions and forced sterilisation. Will he commit to taking action on this by formally and publicly condemning the population control practices of the Chinese Communist party and requesting that these cease immediately?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to raise these abhorrent issues. We debated this in the Chamber earlier this year when a report was made available. We will continue to hold China to account under its international obligations and to take the lead globally.

Jack Brereton: China routinely breaches the international norms that we stand for, whether it be egregious trade practices, intellectual property or human rights issues such as those in Xinjiang. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps taken to raise our concerns directly with the Chinese Government?

Nigel Adams: Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. We did so yesterday directly with the Chinese embassy. The Chinese ambassador is regularly summoned to the FCDO—one would think that he would have his own car parking space by now, given the number of times that he has visited. The Foreign Secretary has raised our serious concerns about the situation in Xinjiang directly with his counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi, on a number of occasions, most recently in July.

Kerry McCarthy: It has been nearly two years since the Environmental Audit Committee published its report into fast fashion. During that inquiry, we heard disturbing evidence about practices in the cotton trade in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and about bondage child labour in the cotton mills of Tamil Nadu, and there was also reference to prison camps in China as well. The Government rejected nearly all of our recommendations, including a requirement for due diligence checks on the supply chain. Does the Minister regard that as a missed opportunity, and what progress has been made in the past two years since that warning sign was raised by the Environmental Audit Committee?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Lady is right to raise this. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, we will be strengthening the Modern Slavery Act. That will be   done at the earliest opportunity when parliamentary time allows. Since the work that she refers to, we have also been carrying out extensive work across Government on this particular issue and, as I have said to other hon. and right hon. Members, I ask her to have just a little bit of patience into the new year and she will be able to see the further work that the Government come forward with.

James Sunderland: Given that the FCDO routinely engages with its Chinese counterparts, may I please ask the Minister what its reaction is when confronted with the evidence and whether diplomacy with China has any effect at all?

Nigel Adams: I can assure my hon. Friend that China does care deeply about its international reputation. We have seen China change its narrative in response to international pressure. One example is that it has moved from outright denial of the existence of these camps to claiming that they are vocational education centres. Its vigorous protest against our multilateral activity suggests that it cares a great deal about the action that we are taking, so I disagree with those who say that our diplomacy has no effect. Of course, the situation in Xinjiang remains deeply concerning, but that is a reason to doubly intensify our diplomatic efforts and not to abandon them.

Dave Doogan: Given the growing concern over the impact of disinformation emanating from Confucius Institutes, including efforts to deny that which is patently happening in Xinjiang, will the Minister and his Government colleagues be reviewing the presence of those institutions in the UK with a view to limiting their influence?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point that no one else has yet raised. A number of UK higher education providers host Confucius Institutes, and are responsible for ensuring that their partnerships are managed appropriately with the right due diligence in place. We take very seriously any concerns regarding the operation of international organisations at those education providers. Like all similar bodies, Confucius Institutes need to operate transparently and with a full commitment to our values of openness and freedom of expression.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and other questions for exactly an hour. We are now going to suspend briefly, just for the sanitisation of the Government Dispatch Box; the other was not touched.
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Arms (Exports and Remote Warfare)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alyn Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about enabling arms exports oversight by the United Kingdom Parliament and the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies; to prohibit the use of lethal autonomous weapons; to make requirements about transparency in arms exports and the use of drones and other remote weapons; and for connected purposes.
I am very proud to be here on behalf of the Scottish National party and others. I am grateful to the supporters, and a wide range of non-governmental organisations and civic society who are very concerned by this topic. I am particularly grateful to the Oxford Research Group’s remote warfare programme, Drone Wars UK, the UN Association, Amnesty International, Article 36, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, and the Quakers, as well as to our excellent Clerks of the House and Roddy McGlynn in my team for getting us here today.
There are three strands to our proposal. We believe that change is needed urgently to how the UK deals with: arms exports—that is sending material elsewhere for other people’s control; drones—that is material that may be deployed globally either from the UK or not, but under the UK’s control; and lethal autonomous weapons—that is new technology that represents a very dangerous evolution in warfare. We also believe that the existing structure of scrutiny within this House—which is, of course, a matter for this House, although we think it needs to be looked at in the round in this piece of legislation—is not fit for purpose.
It is worth establishing a few points. I am an SNP Member of this House proudly working towards an independent Scotland and energising democratic prospects, so why should I care about UK arms exports? There is a simple answer: we are not independent yet and this is an issue of pressing domestic—however we define it—and global concern. It is incumbent upon us to try to effect change here, to make Scotland’s voice and concerns heard, and thereby demonstrate the stance of an independent Scotland. Whatever is in Scotland’s future, I believe that this is a pressing domestic issue for all of us everywhere.
It is also worth establishing—it may be controversial for some—that I am not against the defence industry. Defence companies represent important research and development, precision manufacturing, high-end engineering, academic contributions and partnerships, and aerospace developments that are key parts of Scotland’s economy now and going forward—and the UK’s as well. They also play a part in the defence ecosystem and the national security of these islands. I believe the Bill will help to strengthen their position by removing the stigma that is, in some quarters, associated with their efforts by bringing a transparency to their effects globally.
There are, as I say, three strands to the proposal. On arms exports, we must assess the scale of what we are talking about. The UK is the world’s second-biggest exporter of arms, worth £11 billion in 2019. That has a significant economic impact domestically, but it also  has a significant impact on other countries’ domestic affairs globally and it is right that we in this place properly scrutinise those effects. Although the existing arrangements give a façade of scrutiny, they contain no effective mechanisms for democratic oversight or transparency. Currently, the Minister grants a licence—after consideration, I do not doubt—but there is no transparency to that process. We do have the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which sits across and is composed of four Committees of this House, but it seldom meets, the Chair is unpaid, it did not sit at all for nine months in 2015 and it took six months to be established in 2020. It barely publishes reports—the last was two years ago. We do not think, therefore, that the current system is working, and we do not think it is adequate for where we are now and where we will be in the future. We propose to create a Select Committee with status, with budget and with heft within this House to properly approve licences on ministerial recommendation, to move the scrutiny and move the power to this place on behalf of the people of these islands.
There are security implications, of course. We would model the new Select Committee on the Intelligence and Security Committee. We believe that the solutions can be found. We would also task it with seeking, as part of its deliberations, input from the devolved Administrations and civic society to ensure democratic accountability and transparency within its processes. Of course, the organisation of how the House scrutinises the Government is a matter for the House, but this is a wider question. The architecture is not fit for purpose, but it also needs new purposes going forward, particularly on drones.
Drones—new technology that is evolving very fast—have changed warfare already. We saw in the last few weeks in Nagorno-Karabakh that the deployment of drone technology was pivotal in the outcome of that conflict and in the suffering of many, many civilians. UK Government policy on drones is opaque and effectively incompatible with democratic oversight. It is also put to shame—there are other countries doing this better—by the US and Israel, who have much more transparent and accountable policies on drone use.
The legislation we seek to bring forward would update UK policy on drones, particularly on the rules of engagement, adherence to international law, and—this is really important—post-strike assessments to learn lessons on how the technology is evolving. We would have that overseen by the new Committee. This would be a modern, democratic oversight that will not present problems for a modern, democratically overseen military command and would move power back to where it should be.
The third strand of the legislation relates to lethal autonomous weapons. This is, as yet, experimental technology, but it is evolving very fast and, I believe, in a deeply dangerous direction. Drones are remote and can operate worldwide, but there is still a human finger on the trigger. The development of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology, as well as other related technologies, could remove that human element from control of these weapons altogether. They should be banned pre-emptively. I am not the first person to call for that; 30 nations, the UN Secretary-General and, indeed, the Pope have called for a ban, on moral but also technological grounds.
The UK can genuinely take a lead on this and, in a bipartisan spirit, I urge it to do so, because that would be a genuinely globally significant development. Ban lethal autonomous weapons pre-emptively and work to build a global consensus on the practicalities of meaningful human control over weapons systems. That would be of global significance. If global Britain got behind that effort, it would be a meaningful contribution and I would be the first to applaud.
In conclusion, we believe that the Bill is necessary, pragmatic, workable and urgent. There is a lot of support for it across the House and in wider civic society. In that bipartisan spirit, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alyn Smith, Kirsty Blackman, Deidre Brock, Amy Callaghan, Stewart Hosie, Caroline Lucas, Chris Law, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Kirsten Oswald, Liz Saville Roberts, Tommy Sheppard and Hywel Williams present the Bill.
Alyn Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed (Bill 235).

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill: Business of the House

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(10) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(15) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any government business of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of Standing Order No. 14(6) (Arrangement of public business) on that day; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of any such debate.
(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Greg Hands.)

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Second Reading

Greg Hands: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The UK will regain full control of its borders at the end of the transition period on 31 December. Irrespective of the ongoing negotiations with the European Union regarding a free trade agreement, the Government have been clear that there will be additional requirements for people and goods travelling to the EU. Since the Trade Bill is unlikely to pass and receive Royal Assent before the new year, we need to ensure that there is no gap in the Government’s ability to share the information that we already collect and hold in order to mitigate any temporary friction from the end of the transition period. That is what this Bill achieves, replicating the Government amendments made to the Trade Bill—clauses 8 to 10 —which is currently passing through the other place. These powers are critical to support the use and sharing of trade-related data between Government Departments and public bodies. They will ensure that there is no lapse in their ability to do this at the end of the transition period before the Trade Bill achieves Royal Assent.
In summary, the Bill will allow the effective use of Government data to ensure the smooth flow of people, goods and services after the end of the transition period. The Cabinet Office’s border and protocol delivery group—the BPDG—is leading work to ensure that our borders are robust and efficient, establishing a borders operations centre to monitor and manage flow through the border and support mitigation of any disruption.

Jonathan Edwards: The Bill is relatively uncontroversial. However, the flow of information in itself will not be enough to deal with the situation we are likely to face in the new year. How concerned is the Minister by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs’ report that the Welsh ports, in particular, are at an unacceptable risk of not being ready for whatever faces them at the beginning of next year?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was well put. I appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee as part of its inquiry, and I read its report in some detail at the weekend. We are working flat out across Government to ensure that all our borders and ports are ready. It is the purpose of the borders and protocol delivery group and of the borders operation centre to make sure that we are ready. We are confident that we have done everything we can to ensure that we are ready on our borders for 1 January, but I have read the report and I noted what it had to say. The Government will be responding in due course.
These powers are critical to support the use and sharing of data related to trade. As I mentioned, a border operations centre will monitor and manage flow through the border and support the mitigation of any disruption. To facilitate that, the Bill will ensure that the Government make the best use of the data they already collect and hold, and reduce inefficiencies and bureaucracy for business. It will support better services by permitting data on the flow of international trade to be shared  and analysed, and by helping to identify and resolve the  root cause of disruption. It will allow the Government to use data more effectively to plan new controls at the border, ensuring that security is maintained, that new requirements are introduced seamlessly and that any temporary friction is mitigated.
We recognise that the Bill has been proposed on an expedited schedule, and that hon. and right hon. Members attach great importance to data security, so I would like to reassure the House that the Bill contains measures to ensure that the permitted use of the data it facilitates is discretionary and specific. The Bill does not create any additional powers to collect data, and it applies only to the public bodies specified and only where those public bodies are satisfied that the data use would support a Ministers’ functions relating to trade. It creates an offence of unlawfully disclosing information, and ensures that data sharing remains subject to general data protection regulation and Data Protection Act protection. Regarding the expedited schedule, I should emphasise that all these measures have already been subject to substantive scrutiny in both Houses during the passage of the Trade Bill, through the relevant clauses, without further amendment. The Bill also contains a sunset clause, which will ensure consistency with the powers being delivered through the Trade Bill.
Clause 2(9) provides the power for a Minister of the Crown to add public authorities to the data-sharing gateway. As this power would include the ability to add devolved Ministers, it has the potential to alter the executive competence of devolved Administrations. In accordance with the Sewel convention, we are seeking consent from the devolved legislatures, and I have written to Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to begin this process.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I apologise for intervening on him once again. Is that the reason that the Welsh Government are not specifically included in clause 2? Are the Government waiting for the legislative consent motion to go through, after which the Welsh Government would be included as one of the groups that would be part of the data sharing? What is the reason for the Welsh Government not being included in clause 2?

Greg Hands: Actually, I will have breaking news. I think that the Welsh Government have given legislative consent to the Bill this morning. Secondly, we have very good and constructive engagement with the Welsh Government, particularly with Baroness Eluned Morgan in the other place. I might add that we did not have that constructive engagement actually in the other place, but via Zoom. We have had very constructive engagement with the Welsh Government to ensure that we have the ability to work together to manage these aspects. Trade is obviously a reserved power, but it has an impact on devolved competences. For example, the management of highways around ports is firmly in an area of devolved competence, so making sure that the two Governments can work together is extremely important.
During the passage of the Trade Bill, we have undertaken a significant programme of ministerial and official-level engagement with the devolved Administrations. That has enabled us to respond to requests, including those related to data-sharing gateways, to assist them with their devolved functions. As the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill replicates clauses in the Trade Bill,  I will be making the same two commitments to the devolved Administrations on data sharing that we made during Committee of the Trade Bill in the other place.
First, the data shared under clause 2 will be used by the border operations centre being established by the Cabinet Office to develop strategic insights about the flow of trade and functioning of the border. The Cabinet Office is committed to sharing strategic analysis related to flow of trade where it will support the more effective management of flow through the border. The Cabinet Office will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations to ensure that relevant analysis and information can be shared to support devolved functions relating to trade and management of the border. Secondly, the UK Government commit to consulting the devolved Administrations before any devolved authorities are added to the list of specified authorities that can share data under clause 2.
Regarding the expedited schedule that we are using today, I should emphasise that all these measures have already been subject to substantive scrutiny in both Houses during the passage of the Trade Bill through the relevant clauses, without further amendment. As I said, the Bill contains a sunset clause, which will ensure consistency with the powers being delivered through the Trade Bill.
This Bill is necessary to ensure that Government can use this information properly to minimise disruption at the border following the end of the transition period. It is limited in scope and contains specific safeguards to prevent inappropriate or excessive use of data. It is a procedural but vital Bill to support readiness for the UK to take back control of its borders, minimise any temporary disruption to the flow of people and goods, and support the development of smart processes and frictionless trade that will support businesses and citizens alike. That will, in turn, underpin the delivery of a world- class border fit for the UK’s future as an independent trading nation, protecting our country, strengthening our economy and growing our international trade. I commend the Bill to the House.

Paul Blomfield: I am pleased to respond to the Bill for the Opposition. The Bill has only emerged within the last couple of days, so I would like to thank the Minister for his efforts to work co-operatively with us on it and for the virtual meeting that he had with me and the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I would also like to thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his office’s liaison with regard to the legislation.
The Government are bringing forward this legislation at some haste, not out of choice, but out of necessity. They need these clauses on the statute book by the end of the transition period to prevent disruption and to best tackle any relevant issues. This, of course, was never meant to be a Bill, and it may not last on the statute book for more than a few weeks. These clauses belong in the Trade Bill, which is still in the other place, and it is simply because the Government have run out of time that they are shoving them through as a stand-alone Bill. This has certain echoes of the negotiations on our future relationship with the European Union, which are running a little too close to the wire too.
We welcome preparedness for the end of the transition period, and we support this effort to minimise disruption and allow data sharing between HMRC and other bodies, such as local councils and resilience forums. However, this is another case of the Government pulling together a last-minute attempt to paper over the cracks that they have created by their failure to conduct the negotiations within a suitable timescale or, indeed, to meet any one of the deadlines—I think there have been five—that the Prime Minister has set for their conclusion. The Minister’s letter to MPs on the Bill tells us:
“The backup vehicle for these clauses would have been the legislation to implement any deal, but without a clear outcome regarding trade negotiations with the EU, we are doing the responsible thing by putting forward standalone legislation to ensure clarity at the end of the year”.
No “clear outcome” is a mild way of describing the current chaos, and let us be clear: the responsibility for that lies with the Prime Minister.
The Trade Bill, of which clauses 8 to 10 more or less make up the Bill in front of us, was first brought to the House in 2017—more than three years ago. Since then, it has been reborn, it has been amended and it has been scrambled into some quick fixes. The Opposition would like the Trade Bill to make its way on to the statute book before it reaches another anniversary; we are looking forward to seeing it back, and I will come on to that point.
Essentially, the Trade Bill was written to provide for accession to the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, the rolling over of trade agreements with non-EU countries prior to 31 December, the creation of a UK Trade Remedies Authority and this data-sharing provision for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Minister will recognise that the Government have achieved the first three on that list by various means, and the fourth with this Bill.
However, we are concerned that that might leave the Trade Bill itself in the long grass—as the Minister knows; we have talked about this informally—allowing the Government to avoid some of the commitments they have now made, as contained in the Trade Bill after the excellent work in the other place. Principally, those amendments enshrine protections for the national health service and social care in any trade deals, ensure that trade deals secured take into account the human rights record of our trading partners—something that is clearly of great concern to the House, as evidenced by the urgent question earlier today—and increase parliamentary oversight by providing improved scrutiny mechanisms.
Those amendments are welcomed by the Opposition and, I am sure, by the Government too. We look forward to debating them when the Trade Bill returns, so I invite the Minister to commit to concluding the passage of the Trade Bill by the end of January and allowing the sunset provisions in clause 4 of this Bill to take effect by then. That will replace this Bill and allow the Trade Bill’s clauses to supersede it.
The Trade Bill is on Report in the other place now, and I think that will continue in the first week of January, so we feel that is an appropriate target and a deadline that the Government might make this time. I ask the Minister to commit to that. That commitment would ensure that we do not lose the Bill and that we  have proper scrutiny of the very many excellent amendments being tabled in the other place. I look forward to that commitment being made as we debate this Bill this afternoon.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to rise in support of this Bill. When I saw that we had six hours to debate this Bill and only 10 speakers down to speak, I thought that at last I might have just enough time to begin to outline some of my thoughts on this particular measure.
Behind that, there is a serious point, as we enter the Christmas and new year period: too often this year there has been very little time for anyone making a speech in this House. We are frequently limited to two or three minutes, and not all of us are, as Lincoln, able to summarise our thoughts in 272 words or less. If it is possible for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to talk to the Speaker to see whether there are ways of amending that in the new year, it would be a very nice new year’s resolution.
While I am in that spirit, perhaps I may address a comment to the Minister. Frequently this year, and maybe for good purpose, the Government have come forward with measures a day or two ahead of their being placed before this House, and they have then gone through the House in a single day. For minor measures such as this one, there is very little to be concerned about, if questions are answered adequately by the Minister, as I am sure they will be. However, the Coronavirus Act 2020, and any potential free trade agreement with the EU, are very significant measures to be passed in a single day, and I am not sure the governance of this country is fully served by such oblique reference to the legislature.

Peter Grant: The hon. Gentleman stood last year and was elected, as were the majority of Members of this House, on a manifesto that included an unconditional guarantee of a free trade agreement with Europe. Do his comments of a few moments ago indicate that he now is not convinced that a free trade agreement with Europe is the best way forward?

Richard Fuller: No, I have full faith in my commitments in the manifesto and in the election, and full confidence in the Prime Minister. I only wish that the separatists from the Scottish National party would have the same full confidence in their words ahead of any referendum on their future, but that is not for today.
I want to press the Minister on some issues largely to do with information. I think he has mentioned some of them, but it would be reassuring to have them more fully expanded upon, because information is the currency of modern wealth creation in many instances, and it is certainly a source of competitive advantage.
I am not clear—perhaps the Minister could clarify this for me—to what extent the permissions in the Bill relate to sharing information solely within the borders and boundaries of the United Kingdom, and to what extent any such information will be shared with third parties. What reassurance can the Minister provide that the scope and format of data sharing, either within Ministries or externally, will not result in a loss of competitive advantage to an individual business, an industry sector or the nation state?
It would be helpful to have a little more clarity from the Minister on the scope of data. He explained that it is to do with trade, but that is a very wide-ranging remit. He said that it is to do only with data that is currently held by public bodies, but public bodies in this country hold almost every piece of data imaginable on us as individuals and on corporations and business activity. Perhaps he cannot say explicitly what will be included, but what sorts of things might be included? Perhaps he could also explain what might be excluded.
Will the Minister clarify that no demands will be made for new data disclosures, essentially protecting people from other burdens—additional data that may be required —in this short period? If there may be demands for additional data disclosure, what might they be?
What provisions are there for the anonymity of data, particularly in relation to the sharing of data with other nation states? Even if the data is at commodity level, that may be a concern. Some sectors have one or two main UK providers, so just because the data is at the level of a standard industrial classification code does not necessarily mean that it does not disclose information that may be relevant to a particular competitor.
I think the Minister was clear about the oversight of data rules in the case of a breach, saying that existing legislation will be covered. If that is not correct, perhaps he could advise us.
A particular bugbear of mine is HMRC’s influence over the Government, which is undue in many respects at the moment. Can the Minister assure me that the provisions of clause 2(4) will specifically restrict HMRC from cross-sharing data with other elements of its work, most explicitly to do with the taxation of enterprises in the UK?
I was interested to read that clause 2(11) defines a public authority as
“an authority exercising functions of a public nature,”
which did not seem to take me very far at all. Will the Minister advise whether the phrase “a public nature” is a defined term in law? If it is not, will he explain what it might mean? Does it include, for example, regulatory agencies, private organisations that are fulfilling public contracts, or organisations that are recipients of public moneys, all of which one could claim are “exercising functions of a public nature”? It would be helpful to get some scoping of what is included here.
The Opposition spokesman and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) referred to a trade deal with the EU. There has been some press speculation—it is just speculation—that the European Union, in its discussions, has proposed pre-emptive tariff regimes as part of its approach to the UK. Can the Minister reassure me that no provisions of the Bill would require information to be disclosed to the European Union as part of a negotiation of any pre-emptive tariff regime in the intervening period? I think that is highly unlikely, but because there has been some speculation, it would be useful to have clarification.
When it comes to agricultural products—the Opposition spokesman mentioned this, but I emphasise it in particular —many people who are farming producers or who are interested in food standards are very reassured by the Minister’s amendments to the Bill, both in this place and in the other place, regarding food standards. As many farmers will be looking particularly intently at  this Bill, will he provide reassurance that nothing in this Bill will do anything to undermine the measures under- pinning standards on agricultural products and trade in agricultural products?
I shall give up my ambition to fill six hours and retire, not hurt but early. I commend the Bill to the House.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister, perfectly reasonably, described the Bill as, in essence, providing the legal basis upon which information can be disclosed and shared between public authorities to ensure that Ministers and those organisations can fulfil their obligations in terms of trade functions. That is perfectly reasonable—nothing wrong with that.
Indeed, the explanatory notes make it very clear that we need such a measure in any event, whether we have a deal—a good deal or a bad deal—or no deal in barely two weeks’ time, so this is absolutely necessary. I share the shadow Minister’s concern that the Trade Bill was not completed in its entirety. It is incomplete, and therefore we have to introduce a measure that may have a very short shelf life indeed.
I have one question on Second Reading, in relation to clause 1. The Minister rightly referred to the devolved Administrations potentially being added to the list of public authorities in clause 2, but clause 1(1)(b) already says that the Revenue may disclose information
“facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade”.
That is already on the face of the Bill, so it does not need to be added in relation to the Revenue’s ability to disclose.
The Minister will be aware of the Scottish Government’s priorities in this regard. Ivan McKee’s letter to him on 12 August said:
“Our priority is getting timely and comprehensive access to the HMRC’s trade microdata, which sits behind the HMRC’s overseas trade statistics and regional trade statistics covering both exports and imports. This company-level data contains variables, such as: company reference number, date, flow, type, value of trade, quantity of trade, weight, commodity code, country of origin, destination, port of entry, dispatch, etc. These variables will allow the Scottish Government to analyse Scottish trade over time, sector, product and destination at a more detailed level than is currently published by the HMRC.”
That is a statement of fact, but given that clause 1(1) permits HMRC to disclose information connected to a devolved Administration to allow them to fulfil their obligations in relation to trade, can I just check with the Minister—I am sure this is correct, but I would be happy to have it on record—that this is not simply permissive, but that it is actually the Government’s intention to provide the data from the Revenue, as provided for by the Bill, to allow the Scottish Government to do accurate work in relation to their trade functions? I am sure that is the case, but it would be very helpful to have it on the record.
In case the Minister thinks he is going to get off with just that, it is worth pointing out that the letter of 12 August also says:
“That does not mean we support the UK Government’s proposed trade policy more generally.”
In terms of our demand for more parliamentary scrutiny, and so on, that is perfectly reasonable.
The Minister described the expedited timetable for this Bill, and my goodness, it is seriously expedited—just one day. Let me just gently say to him that, given that the explanatory notes said that we are going to need a measure like this in any event, if we had not wasted time on the pointless, meaningless, futile United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, whose avowed purpose is to break international law and engage in a power grab from devolved Administrations, we might perhaps have had time to have a rather less expedited look at this, including questions on access to and sharing of data, and where and who might have access to it. That might be quite difficult—although frankly, given how few people there are here, not so difficult—in the timetable that we have available.
I have no problem with supporting this Bill on Second Reading. There is one cause of concern that we will raise in Committee—and hopefully the Minister can provide good, strong answers to it—but, as it stands, we certainly have no intention of opposing, at this stage, the legal basis on which to share information.

Christine Jardine: I echo much of what the Labour and SNP spokespeople have said. There is little that can be added, certainly with the Bill being brought forward in the manner that it is today and the time that we have. That is indicative of the shambles of the Government’s handling of our exit from the EU and the end of the transition period. I am not sure how the Government expect industry and business to be prepared for 1 January when this expedited legislation illustrates just how unprepared the Government themselves appear to be for the end of the transition period.
The Liberal Democrat party and I agree that we do need, upon leaving the EU, legislation to make trade deals with other countries, but perhaps we are in this situation because many of us do not agree that the Trade Bill—the original Trade Bill—is the way to do it. It has failed on several counts, but particularly in setting out proper procedures for parliamentary consultation, scrutiny and approval of future international trade agreements.
This Bill is, as the Minister said, necessary in order to allow our authorities to function properly on 1 January. However, if the Government expect, understandably, this place to recognise the need for flexibility to cope with this lack of preparedness, surely businesses and companies across the country should be able to expect a similar understanding. I appeal to the Government to recognise, and urge the Minister to take back to his colleagues, the need for an adjustment period for businesses to implement change, because if we are going to accept that this is a difficult period, as it is because of the lack of the deal on which we are still waiting for word, then surely business can demand the same sort of understanding that the Government are asking of the House.

Peter Grant: I am very pleased to be able to speak in this Second Reading debate. This is actually the first time I have spoken in the Chamber since I contributed to the debate on the Chancellor’s  financial statement immediately before lockdown. The reason for that is that I believe it is incumbent on all of us not to be here unless we absolutely have to. I greatly regret the fact that the Government have not brought forward proposals to reactivate the full remote participation in debates that we had for a short time earlier in the year.
Obviously I did not travel down here to take part in this debate, because we did not know that it was taking place. I did so because of two important pieces of secondary legislation on the Order Paper that are no longer there. I was on the train yesterday morning on my way down especially to speak on those two items when I got an email saying that they had been pulled and asking if I would mind contributing for the SNP on this one. Rather than have a situation where the taxpayer was paying for me to travel from Fife, have a couple of nights in London, and then go back up again when I did not need to be here at all, I was tempted to make sure that they got their money’s worth, and every penny of it, by taking up the full three hours that is allocated to this Second Reading debate. However, my reading of the mood music is that that would not endear me to anybody here or to anybody else, so I will not do it.
That trivial example of the impact that this has had on my planning for today is a tiny fraction of the bigger picture. The only reason this Bill has had to come forward at all just now, and the reason it is having to be brought forward in such a hurry, is that the Government do not have control of the process. A process that was supposed to be about Parliament taking back control is now seeing Parliament having its business chopped and changed at a few hours’ notice. At the moment, the hundreds of people who work here—not just MPs but staff of the House of Commons—do not know whether they will have to come to work next week. The Prime Minister wanted to ensure that everybody had certainty as to the rules about visiting loved ones at Christmas, but Members and staff of the House of Commons do not know for certain whether they will have to be at work at the start of that period. Parliament is not in control of the process, and the Government are not in control of the process, and it is difficult to see whether anyone is in control of the process.
I fully understand that we now need to get this legislation through in a hurry. I was unhappy about some details of the coronavirus legislation, which the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) mentioned earlier, but I fully understood the need to get it on the statute book as quickly as possible. The emergency we face now is not of the same type; this emergency is entirely of the Government’s making. It is not the fault of those who voted in the referendum four and a half years ago. Those who voted to leave had a reasonable right to expect that the Government would have delivered on their wishes before the last minute, as is happening now. Not only are the Government not delivering on time; they are not delivering at all. They promised to deliver a free trade agreement with Europe—that was in the manifesto and was mentioned several times—but they have not delivered that.
The explanatory notes to the Bill indicate that parts of it would have been needed even if we had that free trade agreement with the European Union, but the vast majority of it would not have been, and we certainly would not have been under this exceptional time pressure  if the process had been managed by a Government who were competent had some idea of where they wanted to get to, instead of being continually obsessed with where they were trying to get away from.
As the Minister said, and as others have alluded to, the Bill simply extracts a few clauses from a Bill that has already been through a detailed scrutiny process, and that eases the concern a bit, but the wider problem is still there. What other emergency legislation will the Government have to bring through, possibly before 31 December, if not very early in the new year, that we do not know about and that has not been through the full scrutiny process as part of another piece of legislation? This process is supposed to be about Parliament taking back control, but I have never seen so much legislation having to be rushed through Parliament, with little time for scrutiny and with some of that legislation possibly having a profound effect on the lives of people and on the way the economy gets back on its feet when the covid pandemic is finally brought under control.
As for the detailed content of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who speaks from the Front Bench, referred to some of the issues. I think the Minister gave assurances in his opening comments that all the requests the Scottish Government made in relation to this Bill and the main Trade Bill have been picked up. In effect, this Bill picks up parts of the Trade Bill as amended with the agreement of the Scottish Government. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the fact that the negotiation of international trade treaties is reserved to Westminster does not mean that the devolved Administrations have little or no responsibility for making trade work for their countries, their communities and their businesses. A lot of the decisions taken by the United Kingdom in the negotiation of trade agreements can be made to work only with the full involvement of the devolved Administrations.
I understand that there have been discussions—I do not know whether at Minister level, officer level or both —over the past few days about this Bill, and I would certainly commend that if it has taken place, but there needs to be much closer and much more co-operative working across the four nations than there has been until now on Brexit. Otherwise, we will find that legislation and trade agreements that are passed purely at the will of Government Ministers in London will have little relevance, or sometimes a negative effect, for Governments, Administrations and citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom.
When we, presumably, agree to the Bill later, I hope that those comments will be borne in mind. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could tell us in his closing remarks what other emergency legislation he is aware of that the Government expect to bring before the House between now and 31 December.

Olivia Blake: Clearly, this is a significant but quite straightforward technical Bill, as the Minister set out. However, last year the Government led people to believe that they had a deal ready to go. They said we were all set to sever ties with Europe and go our own way. In the last few weeks, we have heard Ministers spinning the airwaves, desperately trying to explain that the oven-ready deal they boasted about referred only to the withdrawal agreement and not the  substance of the trade deal with Europe. Mr Deputy Speaker, if this is an oven-ready deal, please remind me never to take up an invitation to Christmas dinner with the Minister, because clearly this is just not good enough.
Today, after three long years and repeated promises that things would be sewn up by now, the Trade Bill has yet to pass into law. This House has yet to discuss the amendments from the other place, and the Government have yet to guarantee that in any future deal we will not see regression on our environmental, food, animal welfare and agricultural standards. There have been no guarantees on protections for our NHS, no guarantees on full parliamentary scrutiny of any future trade deals and no guarantee that human rights will remain enshrined in our future trading relationships across the globe.
Instead, just two weeks before the end of the transition period, we are discussing a non-controversial, technical proposal, which allows HMRC to share data with other bodies. People with an eye on this Chamber would be forgiven for thinking that Ministers are making this up as they go along. Either that or they are using this quick-fix, rushed legislation to kick the Trade Bill into the long grass and avoid tackling the amendments from the other place on protecting the NHS, parliamentary scrutiny and human rights. I hope that is not the case.
What assurances can the Government give that the Trade Bill will not be unduly delayed and kicked down the road, following this Bill? What assurances can the Minister give me that they will uphold any amendments on protecting the NHS and social care in trade deals? If, as Ministers claim, this Bill is not a replacement for the wider Trade Bill, when can we expect that Bill back in the Commons?
Enough of the spin and delay. Businesses are crying out for clarity on arrangements after the transition period. The Government must commit to the full passage and implementation of the Trade Bill, with full consideration of the amendments, support for human rights, and protections for our NHS and environmental, agricultural, food and animal welfare standards.

Paul Blomfield: With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) disappointed me: I was so looking forward to him utilising the six hours. However, he made important points about scrutiny, additional data disclosures, anonymity of data, cross-sharing within HMRC, and food and agricultural standards, to which I shall return.
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), speaking on behalf of the SNP, was right to highlight the time wasted, and the trust and confidence in this country consequently eroded, by the consideration of aspects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a good point when she asked how businesses can be prepared for our departure from the transition when the Government themselves clearly are not.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) made an important point about our parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic, which the Opposition hope the Government will reconsider. He was more modest than the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire: he was  aiming for only three hours. Again, however, he disappointed us by not taking them. However, he made the important point that the Government are not in control. The repercussions of that are felt not simply in this House, but by businesses and on jobs across the country.
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made some important points, to which I will return, about the maintenance of protections and scrutiny.
This Bill is about the management of trading relationships and allowing that to happen as smoothly as possible. On those future relationships, I hope the Minister will agree that the amendments made to the Trade Bill in the other place strengthen it and that any delay in its continued passage would not be appropriate. The Labour amendment to the Trade Bill on the first day of Report, which protects the NHS and social care from trade deals, is clearly essential. Now the US President-elect has been confirmed, many may feel there may be some reduction in concern about that, but it remains of paramount importance that our public services are protected.
The urgent question that we considered before we moved to the Bill was on the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people. It demonstrates the serious concern about human rights abuses across the world that is felt on both sides of the House. It is vital that our trade deals recognise that, and in the other place colleagues have amended the Bill to require trade negotiations to be preceded by an assessment of the other country’s human rights record. That undeniably sensible and responsible check and balance is backed up by another check, which means that, before any deal is ratified, Ministers will be obliged to show that it will comply with the UK’s human rights obligations. Finally, the Government would produce an annual report on compliance with rights laws by trading partners, and all these would be presented to the relevant committees in the Commons and the Lords, with the possibility that the courts could be used to challenge trade deals that breached rights standards.
Just last night in the other place, the Trade Bill was amended to improve the accountability of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, providing for parliamentary scrutiny, which would much improve the process. We have to accept that CRaG is wholly inadequate, as it leaves whether there is a debate and vote entirely in the Government’s gift. Such a debate and vote in Parliament happen only after the agreement is signed. There is no scrutiny of negotiating objectives or texts during negotiations.
This is done far better in other countries. We talk often about being “world-leading” in circumstances where that transparently does not apply. In this context we must recognise that other countries conduct scrutiny of trade deals much better. For example, in the US scrutiny involves unions, businesses and civil society. The amendments made in the other place at least allow for debate through which those points can be raised and the voices of those affected can be heard. So this Bill must pass, but there are wider questions about scrutiny and trade policy across the Trade Bill that require attention. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that that will happen early in the new year, and that we can look for the Bill being concluded by the end of January.
In the explanatory notes to the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, the Government state:
“The Cabinet Office is establishing the Border Operations Centre to manage and mitigate potential disruption caused by the new border requirements at the crucial moment of transition. Without the data sharing clauses, Cabinet Office will be limited in the data it can receive from other departments, which will significantly hamper its ability to provide the single version of truth for flow of goods through the border, including a commodity level view of flow across the border (such as medicines and food supply).”
Does the Minister accept that, without the deal promised by the Prime Minister—the oven-ready deal for which the nation voted last December—which will deliver barrier-free and tariff-free trade, the potential disruption will be far worse? We are two weeks from the end of the transition period, but this Bill will not provide a silver bullet for managing trade smoothly after 31 December. It is the deal that the Prime Minister promised a year ago and signed up to in the political declaration at the start of this year that will deliver
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”,
safeguard
“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”,
keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership”
and indeed ensure the protection of the Good Friday agreement through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is where the Government’s focus should be right now, and should have been to ensure that we would have, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said, the opportunity to debate in full the provisions of any agreement reached in good time, and to conclude that process to enable businesses to be ready.

Greg Hands: To respond to what I think has been a very constructive debate on Second Reading of this Bill, can I first welcome the tone that has been set? The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and his neighbour—I think she must be his neighbour—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), made similar points about the passage of the Bill. I have to say that nobody, I think, would be more pleased than I to see the Trade Bill finally reach Royal Assent, as during my previous time at the Department I was here at the Dispatch Box introducing that Bill in the spring of 2017. I am told that the overall passage of the Trade Bill then and now has involved some 130 hours of scrutiny and debate. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who did preface his remarks by saying he had not been here to debate for some time, and I understand his reasons for that, may have implied there had been insufficient scrutiny of some of these measures. I can reassure him that there has been very extensive scrutiny. But I do say a couple of things.

Peter Grant: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could I just correct his understanding of what I said? I made it perfectly clear that I appreciated that this Bill in another way has had significant scrutiny. My concern is that there might be other emergency legislation on its way through the pipeline that we will not have time to give sufficient scrutiny. That was the point I  was making.

Greg Hands: I appreciate the hon. Member’s clarification. It certainly is not my job to outline whatever other legislation may be out there. That would be entirely a matter for the Leader of the House of Commons, who, as we know, made a statement on other legislation earlier this week.
The Member speaking for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, says that he supports the Bill, he supports the continuity agreements, he supports its procurement measures, he supports the trade defences, he supports the data sharing—but he has used every available opportunity to vote against the Bill. He voted against it on Second Reading, he voted against it on Third Reading and it has been voted against at every available opportunity by the official Opposition and by the Scottish National party as well. He says that the concern is that we might kick the Trade Bill into the long grass. No, we very much want the Trade Bill to get Royal Assent as soon as possible. It has very important provisions in it, such as allowing domestic law to remain amendable for continuity trade agreements and the Trade Remedies Authority. It is a very important piece of legislation.
But I did welcome the hon. Member’s commitment to conclude the Trade Bill by the end of January. I see the current Government Deputy Chief Whip here—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). As a former Government Deputy Chief Whip, I and, as a former Chief Whip of the Opposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that that is not entirely in the hands of the Government and that, actually, it is very much as well in the hands of the whole of Parliament. But I will take that as a submission to the usual channels that the official Opposition want the Trade Bill to achieve Royal Assent by 31 January, which is what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said. I will take that as a submission of the Opposition’s intent—good intent—to get it through as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member says he was against CRaG, but I remind him that it was the last Labour Government who introduced CRaG. His boss, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually voted for CRaG. He also propagated this deliberate confusion about the oven-ready deal. It is quite clear that that referred to the withdrawal agreement that the House of Commons voted on a year ago. I would just ask him: is he going to support the further trade deal, if there is one, with the European Union? We have heard silence from the official Opposition on that.
To turn to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who also had a very constructive tone, in areas of devolved competence we have been clear. I am repeating the same commitments made at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Trade Bill, including in the Committee stage of the Trade Bill, that he remarked on at the time and he will remember well. I am making those same commitments today. Overall, we wish to work with the devolved Administrations, particularly in areas of devolved competence, where they have a clear role, such as the management of highways, around ports and other things that relate to facilitating trade.
The hon. Member added, notwithstanding that, that he did not want me to think this was a sudden conversion, with him agreeing with the Government trade policy—definitely not. As I have pointed out from the Dispatch  Box a few times, the Scottish National party has not supported a single trade agreement proposed either here or in Brussels.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that these are not new measures in any sense. They are taken directly from the Trade Bill. The HMRC powers were published in 2017. The further powers were published in July on Report. We are introducing this legislation purely because the Trade Bill probably will not get Royal Assent before 31 December.
I reassure my hon. Friend that there are safeguards on the data. It is data that is already collected. There is no new disclosure of data. Specific named authorities are discretionary to support a Government Minister’s function in relation to trade. In terms of such things as anonymity, the existing restrictions around the General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 1998 kick in. On taxation, there are already strong measures in place to protect the data of taxpayers. The Bill is clear that data can be shared only where disclosure would support functions related to trade. It could not be disclosed for any other purposes.
My hon. Friend also asked about a private company performing a function on behalf of a public authority. That is possible, but it would operate under the same restrictions and the discretionary powers would apply—GDPR and so on. He asked me for a Dispatch Box commitment on agriculture and food standards. Our commitment is absolute. The commitment that he and I made individually and collectively in our general election manifesto this time a year ago continues as well.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) called for an adjustment period, which I think is a new term for a transition period. She is calling for a transition period from the transition period, which would increase uncertainty. The UK is leaving the single market and the customs union on 1 January, and an indeterminate postponement of that would, by definition, only increase uncertainty.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I am going to finish now. The purpose of the Bill is simple: it allows the Government to use data that they already hold, in order to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, goods and people across the UK’s borders at the end of the transition period. The Bill will support better services by permitting data on the flow of international trade to be shared and analysed. The Bill does not create any new powers, but brings forward critical powers that are needed from the end of the transition period to ensure that the Government and public bodies can use the information that they already collect.
We have had a good debate, carried out in an excellent spirit, and I thank all Members for their contributions. My thanks also go to the Government Opposition Whips, of course, who have ensured that the Second Reading has run effectively—particularly under your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: That will be it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Rosie Winterton: Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair. However, I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but Chair of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1 - Trade functions: disclosure of information by HMRC

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 2 stand part.
Clauses 3 to 6 stand part.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Dame Rosie, if I have the nomenclature correct. As we come to the end of the transition period, it is important that the Government make the best use of the information that they already hold to minimise any disruption that may result from the new border requirements that will apply irrespective of the nature of our trading relationship with the EU. More specifically, it is important that the Government use that information to develop a detailed picture of the flow of goods and people at key locations at the border. That will inform decision making right across Government, leading to better outcomes for businesses and citizens.
As Members will be aware, the clauses in the Bill have been scrutinised previously by the House during the passage of the Trade Bill. Members may recall that a key source of information within Government relating to both trade and border management is HMRC, which has significant responsibilities in relation to the movement of goods across the border. HMRC has specific statutory restrictions in relation to the sharing of information that it holds and, in the absence of an express legal gateway to permit sharing, the Government cannot make use of this data effectively.
The clause has therefore been introduced to allow HMRC to share the data that it holds with any other public or private body that carries out a public function related to trade for the purposes of that function. This power enables HMRC and bodies working with or on behalf of HMRC to share data with Departments, including, for example, the Cabinet Office, which, through the border and protocol delivery group, is leading Government preparedness for border readiness at the end of the transition period.
BPDG has established a border operations centre to monitor and manage flow at the end of the transition period and to support relevant authorities to better manage border controls and ensure that frictions to the flow of trade are minimised and negative impacts are mitigated. The border operations centre will use data provided by HMRC, alongside other Departments and public bodies, so that it can analyse and promote efficiencies in the flow of traffic in goods and services in and out of the United Kingdom. Access to HMRC data is crucial to developing this detailed commodity-level view of the flow of goods at the border.
Additionally, the clause will facilitate the sharing of information with other organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Customs Organisation, both of which the UK will be obligated to share data with as part of our international obligations for the purposes of trade. This is a necessary clause to ensure continuity as we come to the end of the transition period, as it will enable the efficient use of HMRC data to support the Cabinet Office’s role in minimising temporary disruption at the border that may result from our new trading relationship with the EU and enable the sharing of data with international organisations where necessary.
Measures have been included in the Bill to ensure the proper handling of the data and to safeguard and protect its use, with penalties for unauthorised disclosure, onward sharing or use. Moreover, Departments will comply with requirements of data protection legislation, including the general data protection regulation, when handling any personal data shared under this gateway, where it is deemed proportionate and necessary to do so. This clause is essential for the Cabinet Office and other bodies to ensure the continued smooth flow of goods.
Moving on to clause 2, alongside HMRC, to which clause 1 applies, more than 20 Departments and public bodies have either operational or policy responsibilities relating to the border, using over 100 IT systems between them. These Departments and public bodies collect and hold numerous types of information related to trade. However, as with HMRC, this information could typically be used only for very specific purposes, with statutory restrictions on the sharing of information with other Departments. These restrictions inhibit the Government identifying and utilising the full potential of their information to support trade policy and the flow of goods and services through the border. The restrictions also lead to inefficiencies, including duplicative requests to industry to share data.
The clause fixes that problem and will allow specified public bodies and Departments to share data where it supports the exercise of a Minister of the Crown’s functions relating to trade. By combining and analysing specific border data, the Government and the Cabinet Office, in particular, will be able to develop insights and analysis to support the Government as a whole to deliver better services. This will ensure that goods and trade to continue to flow when the UK becomes an independent trading nation at the end of the transition period. As with clause 1, this clause does not, however, grant any additional data collection powers to the Government. Instead, it seeks to create a discretionary gateway to enable more effective sharing of data that Departments and public bodies already hold.
Moving to clause 3, the Government rightly take the safeguarding of information and personally identifiable information, in particular, very seriously. As I hope I made clear in introducing clauses 1 and 2, the ability to share data under both gateways is discretionary. Individual Departments and public authorities providing data will need to be satisfied that data sharing is necessary to support functions relating to trade prior to sharing the data. Furthermore, as I mentioned when introducing clauses 1 and 2, any data shared by the data-sharing gateway that is being established will have to comply with data protection legislation, including the general data protection regulation and its principles, covering necessity, proportionality and minimisation to protect the rights of individuals.
Clause 3 provides an additional safeguard on top of all the others by creating a criminal offence if information relating to a person’s identity, or information from which a person’s identity might be deduced, is shared in contravention of clause 2. I hope that will provide further assurance, if it is required, that the data shared through the gateway will be handled appropriately.

Jonathan Edwards: I am interested in clause 3. To whom are the Government concerned that the information might be shared inappropriately? Who would be the recipients of that information?

Greg Hands: I think the hon. Gentleman’s question was about what kind of people would be inappropriate; it would be people to whom the legislation will not apply. We are talking about a discretionary power to share data to assist a Minister in functions relating to trade. In addition, the criminal power, as I understand it, is in the Bill specifically to prevent any individual person’s identity from becoming either known directly or deduced through the data that has been produced. Clause 3 puts in place an additional power to prevent that data from becoming known. I do not really want to speculate, Dame Rosie, but I can imagine a whole series of people and bodies that might have inappropriate access to an individual’s data as they pass through a border. I think we can all imagine the sort of people who may not have either your, mine or the Government’s best interests, or the interests of international trade, at heart.
Clause 4 contains the sunset elements of this Bill. As the House will be aware, the Trade Bill is currently passing through the other place and is now unlikely to receive Royal Assent before the end of the transition period. As I hope I made clear in introducing clauses 1 and 2, it is essential that we are able to provide a gateway to enable the sharing of trade-related data that the Cabinet Office requires before the end of this period as it takes on border-monitoring functions. To ensure that we can do that in time, the Bill replicates clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill, which has been referred to at least twice so far. Clause 4 is therefore required to facilitate the expiry of clauses 1 to 3 of this Bill if similar clauses are passed in the Trade Bill, and will thereby ensure that the UK statute book is kept in good working order.
Clause 5 sets out the interpretation of key terms for the purposes of the Bill. Specifically, it provides interpretation of the terms “the data protection legislation”,  “enactment”, “the investigatory powers legislation” and “Minister of the Crown”. The interpretations are intended to ensure that the reader of the Bill has clarity in respect of and understands the use of those terms in the Bill.
Finally, Clause 6 sets out the territorial extent of the legislation, when it will come into force and its short title. Subsection (1) sets out the territorial extent of the provisions:
“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
This is a standard clause in any Bill to specify the extent of the its measures.
I note that the Government have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on these provisions as part of work on the Trade Bill, to ensure that the data- sharing gateways can also assist them with their devolved functions—I have already mentioned traffic management around ports as a classic case of where a devolved Administration have a legitimate and correct interest in ensuring that data will flow and therefore that trade flows. In that spirit of working closely together, the Government made two commitments to the devolved Administrations in relation to data sharing under clause 9 of the Trade Bill when it was in Committee in the Lords, and I will repeat them today. First, the data shared under clause 9 of that Bill will be used by the border operations centre and the Cabinet Office to develop strategic insights. The Cabinet Office is committed to sharing strategic analysis related to the flow of data where it will support the more effective management of flow through the border. Cabinet Office officials will continue to work closely with counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that relevant analysis and information can be shared to support devolved functions relating to trade and management of the border. Secondly, the UK Government commit to consulting the devolved Administrations before any devolved authorities are added to or removed from the list of specified authorities that can share data under clause 9 of the Trade Bill.
I turn to the remaining subsections of clause 6. Clause 6(2) of the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill provides for the Bill to come into force on the day of Royal Assent. Clause 6(3) simply provides that the Bill, once enacted, will be cited as the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020. I hope that the House agrees that clause 6, and therefore all six clauses, should stand part of the Bill.

Paul Blomfield: We recognise that at present there are limited circumstances in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can disclose information, such as when consent has been given by a taxpayer or when compelled to do so to comply with a court order. The Bill clearly continues that tight framing over the protection of information.
I have a few questions for the Minister, but I shall first comment on amendment 1. Although it is clear that amendment 1 aims to make watertight clause 2(8)—and I do understand the concerns behind that—Labour is satisfied that subsection (8) offers sufficient protection. However, I hope that the Minister can expand on that and explain what kind of instances subsection (7) might cover so that we can be fully assured on that point.
As we said earlier, this Bill is very much a lift of clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill, although it diverges slightly by widening the protections in clause 2(8), ensuring that no disclosures made under this Act would
“contravene the data protection legislation, or…be prohibited by the investigatory powers legislation”,
rather than including specific references to the parts of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Data Protection Act 2018, as we saw previously. Will the Minister give us a reason for that change and let the House know what is now in scope that was not previously?
The Bill gives new powers to HMRC to share information with international bodies, local bodies, devolved Administrations and others for analysis and monitoring. Will the Minister elaborate on the purposes for which that might be done, more specifically? Perhaps he could also explain the way in which the border operations centre will use that data to support local authorities, local resilience forums and other key public services, such as hospitals and clinical commissioning groups, when transporting key medicines or vaccines during the pandemic.
A little more broadly, I wonder whether the Minister could give other details about the border operations centre and the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. For instance, after the awarding of the port infrastructure fund yesterday, what assessment has he made of the number of ports that consider their allocation of the fund adequate to cover the necessary infrastructure changes required by the border operating model? As that fund was so significantly over-subscribed, what discussions is the Minister having with the Cabinet Office to ensure that our borders are fully operational by 1 January?
There is another point on which many of my colleagues and I have pressed Ministers. I do not think that we have had the opportunity to press this Minister on it, though, so I will give him a chance to answer. Can he tell us how many customs agents of the 50,000 recommended by the Government have now been trained and recruited? Will he also give us an update on the IT systems required to process customs and support our borders after the transition? Data sharing under the powers of the Bill is clearly welcome, but we also need the systems that sit alongside it to enable us to minimise disruption.
The Bill is needed to allow public bodies to access information about their areas and to prevent disruption. It also contains useful protections regarding data sharing, but it is a drop in the ocean when it comes to preparedness for the end of the transition period, so I hope that the Minister can answer some of those additional questions and give not simply this House, but business, the reassurance that it needs.

Stewart Hosie: I wish to speak to amendment 1,
tabled in my name, and to some of the other clauses.
During the passage of the incomplete Trade Bill there were, as the Minister will have seared into his soul, a number of debates and amendments—I think amendments 33 and 34—relating to the requirement to collect data by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, specifically with  regard to the exclusion of protection of legal professional privilege, which in many other circumstances would have applied. The same issue to some extent arises, in terms of the disclosure of information, in clause 2(7) of the Bill. It states:
“A disclosure under this section does not breach— (a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person disclosing the information, or (b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
The explanatory notes make it very clear that
“Certain information held by specific public authorities are subject to constraints on disclosure. To enable sharing of this information, clause 2(7) provides a general disapplication of these restrictions.”
If I may, I will just remind the Minister what was said in previous debates on this matter. Legal professional privilege and confidentiality are essential to safeguard the rule of law and the administration of justice. They permit information to be communicated between a lawyer and client without the fear of it going to a third party without the clear permission of the client. In normal circumstances, that includes HMRC. Many UK statutes already give express protection of legal privilege and it is vigorously protected by the courts.
We are in a rather odd position where data can be collected and is required to be collected, and where legal professional privilege has been disregarded entirely. We are now in a position where clause 2(7) disregards legal privilege in terms of the disclosing or sharing of that information. The Minister may well pray in aid some of the limited protections that are offered in clause 2, but if I run through them I suspect we might conclude they are not quite as strong as the Minister might like to think they are. The explanatory notes state:
“Clause 2(8) confirms that nothing in this section authorises the disclosure of information which would contravene data protection legislation or which is prohibited under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.”
So far, so good—that is helpful, but very, very narrow. Others may say that it is only specified public authorities who can disclose or share information. They are specified in clause 2(3) as: the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, a strategic highways company, or a port health authority constituted in a particular way. However, clause 2(9) states:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend this section for the purpose of specifying a public authority in, or removing a public authority from, subsection (3).”
Therefore, any number of other bodies could be added to that list. The other protection one could point to would be to say, “Ah, but they can be added if they are dealing with functions relating to trade.” They include:
“the analysis of the flow of traffic, goods and services...the analysis of the impact, or likely impact, of measures or practices…the design, implementation and operation of such measures”,
and so on. Those three specifics, however, are prefaced by:
“Those functions include, among other things, functions relating to”.
That allows it to be completely open-ended. It is not a comprehensive or complete list. As anyone watching will know, trade is no longer simply about traffic flows, the number of containers, quota and tariffs. It is about a whole range of things: all sorts of regulations, security, immigration and goodness knows what.
The provision is vague and ill-defined. It strikes me as being subject to scope creep by regulation. Fundamentally, it includes clause 2(7)(a) and (b), which is a get out of jail free card insofar as it disapplies the normal protections of information being disclosed, which would be subject in many other circumstances, including in statute, to legal professional privilege. That is actually a problem in the long run, but not necessarily in the short run as it allows us to get over an immediate hurdle where data must be shared. I appreciate that but, in the long run, how on earth can we say that we are a law-abiding country and that we want to adhere to the international legal system—the rule of law internationally—when we have here the disapplication of fundamental rights and protections for people not to have their information, normally subject to legal protection, shared, collected, distributed and disseminated. When the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked whether a private body could act as a public authority, the answer seemed to be that, yes, it could. That means that we could have a private body—a private company of indeterminate origin and a very small book value—doing something on behalf of the public, acting as a public authority, where the normal protection of data, which it may be provided with to fulfil its role, has the normal protections of legal privilege disapplied in statute.
Time is short. I know that this is urgent, I am not stupid, but this is actually serious. We cannot have a Government riding roughshod over legal protection, legal privilege, in this way over such a short period of time just because they have failed to get their ducks in a row and a proper functioning Trade Bill through where everything joins up.
It is not my intention, Dame Rosie, to press amendment 1 to a vote, but I do hope that the Minister takes seriously what I have just said and understands the possible consequences, particularly if it is private bodies acting as public authorities which have disapplied from them everything in terms of protection other than data protection and whether it would breach one other piece of named legislation. That is a serious and bad place to be.

Christine Jardine: I will not take the House’s attention for long. Again, I find myself in agreement. The Liberal Democrats have serious reservations about the original Trade Bill, but we recognise that, through no fault of this House, the Bill has to be expedited. We need some form of data protection and for our authorities be able to use the data effectively, so we are prepared not to go along with this Bill, but to accept that we need it and that we need it by 1 January. We are in this situation simply because the negotiations with the European Union have not gone in the way that the Government had assured us they would and because the situation has not been handled by the UK Government as expertly as we might have hoped.

Greg Hands: I will, if I may, respond to those points. I thank Members for making them and for participating in this Committee debate.
Taking the points in turn, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked about instances covered by clause 2(7). As he noted, reference to investigatory powers legislation is absent from the Trade Bill. That is a minor drafting error. I should have made that clear. An equivalent change will be made to the Trade Bill in due course during its passage.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of more general questions about borders and ports and I will try to answer those as best I can, recognising that almost all of his questions are within the remit of other Departments, rather than the Department for International Trade.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the border operations centre will assist the movement of medicines and vaccines. That will be a key part of the priorities that we have set for the border after 1 January, to ensure that vital goods continue to flow quickly and efficiently. I will give an example of the sort of data that would be within scope for the border operations centre, assuming that the Bill becomes law. The ability to analyse customs declarations, transit declarations, export declarations, safety and security declarations and things such as highways data would, I think, allow medicines and vaccines to be moved more quickly and more efficiently than would otherwise be the case without the data.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Department for Transport’s new ports fund, and he commented on how popular it had been; I welcome his welcome of the popularity of that fund. In response to his question, I am not aware of any specific ports, but ports are not within the remit of the Department for International Trade directly, so I will pass on his questions to the Department for Transport. We have cross-governmental discussions on ports readiness all the time, in particular between the border and protocol delivery group, the Department for Transport and the Cabinet Office. I can reassure him that those discussions are very frequent. In terms of the number of customs agents recruited, I will have to refer him to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in charge of HMRC, to answer his specific point.
I turn to amendment 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I would like to briefly set out why clause 2(7) is required and aim to alleviate any concerns he may have. As he rightly said, subsection (7) provides for a general disapplication of existing restrictions on the disclosure of information and applies only to Government Departments and public bodies listed in clause 2; I do not think he doubts for a moment that that is the case. It provides that restrictions on the disclosure of information will not apply when information is disclosed under clause 2(1).
Certain information held by the public authority specified in clause 2 has been identified for building up critical data from which insights may be derived regarding the flow of traffic, goods and services in and out of the United Kingdom. It is anticipated, however, that those insights are, in themselves, likely to highlight other areas where information is needed in order to provide as complete a picture as possible of border flows and activity relating to trade. As Members will be aware, further public bodies may therefore be added to the gateway through the delegated power in clause 2(9). It is not possible at this stage to anticipate what specific restrictions may apply to those additional public bodies, and therefore a general disapplication of restrictions is appropriate, bearing in mind all the other protections on the face of the Bill.
Removing subsection (7) would limit the information capable of being disclosed to the Cabinet Office and would ultimately impact the Government’s ability to mitigate disruption to the flow of traffic, goods and  services at the border. I should stress that the Government take the protection of data held by Departments, public bodies and private companies acting on their behalf extremely seriously. As I have said, the gateway is permissive. It does not mandate that bodies listed in clause 2 must share information. Individual Departments and public bodies will need to be satisfied that data sharing is necessary to support functions relating to trade.

Stewart Hosie: If the Minister is right that removing the disapplication would restrict the Government’s ability to collect the data they need, will he tell the Committee what data that is currently protected the Government wish to access or have a hold of that they would not otherwise be able to get?

Greg Hands: That is a very reasonable question, but I will stress what I said earlier: it is not possible at this stage to anticipate what specific restrictions may apply to the additional public bodies, otherwise we would have put on the face of the Bill which other public bodies could be added in due course. We have not put those on the face of the Bill, but we have said that it is perfectly possible that, during the conduct of these operations, it will become clear that there is other data out there that would assist the Government in ensuring that trade flows well at the border. We want to ensure that those other bodies could quickly come within scope, through the delegated procedures that we have laid out in legislation, and therefore it would not be appropriate to put a general restriction on those bodies. It is best to rely on the overall restrictions in the legislation to ensure that we have robust data protection.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has raised an issue that would become more relevant if the sunsetting of this legislation does not take hold. If this legislation sunsets, most of us will be fairly comfortable with it. However, there is an opening here, with the combination of subsections (7) and (11) of clause 2, and subsection (1)—that sets out the purpose—which is that it would be right for Parliament to have some review of the application of this in practice. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance, if there is no sunset within six months, that he will come back to the House to reassure us that those potential areas of concern have not been breached?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I must say that if the Trade Bill has not received Royal Assent within six months, I will certainly be under scrutiny in this House, for a piece of legislation that has now been with us for three and a half years. I can give him that assurance. Obviously, the intention is that this will sunset when the Trade Bill receives Royal Assent. We do think that the overall restrictions on the use of the data, and the discretionary nature of the power, are appropriate in this place. But it is also quite right for the Government to make allowance for the fact that it may come to light that extra data will be needed, and we do not want to have what might be viewed as unnecessary restrictions on the use of that data being added now as it becomes useful to us during the course of January. Our intention, however, is that the legislation should sunset as early as possible, with the Trade Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Clause 2(8) makes explicit the requirement for any data sharing conducted under the proposed gateway to comply with data protection legislation, including GDPR. Government Departments sharing data under this gateway will also be expected to comply with robust data governance practices, including completing data protection impact assessments and ensuring that data sharing agreements are in place. Furthermore, clause 3 creates an offence for the disclosure of any information in contravention of clause 2 where a person’s identity is specified in the disclosure or can be deduced from it—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
I hope my remarks have reassured the hon. Member for Dundee East on both the importance of clause 2(7) and the steps that the Government have taken to ensure the safeguards are in place where data is shared under this gateway. I hope that his intention is not to press his amendment. I urge the Committee to support clauses 1 to 6.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Greg Hands.)

Stewart Hosie: I would be delighted to take this opportunity to make the briefest of Third Reading speeches and to return to a theme that has typified this entire debate. Notwithstanding the need to be able to share data or to have the legal basis on which to do so, it is completely wrong to rush this through with potentially hours, or possibly a day or so, before the House rises for recess and barely a fortnight before the full horrors of Brexit come on to the British people and business in this country.
This is a lesson for us all in the future: there must be a better way of dealing with technical matters, even ones that come up urgently, than today’s very short and expedited debate. I hope that, as the Minister said in Committee, the Trade Bill gets its Royal Assent soon enough that the dangers implicit in this—temporary, I hope—legislation with a long sunset clause do not come to fruition.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Christine Jardine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and your patience, and I ask your advice on a matter that has come to my attention today that is of great importance not only to my constituent, Murray Gray, but to a number of constituents, mostly children, who are currently in receipt of private prescriptions for medicinal cannabis. I have had confirmation today that the Department of Health and Social Care says that those prescriptions will not be permissible after 1 January, so a number of patients will find themselves without medication. I wondered whether there is some way that could be raised as an  urgent matter to be discussed by the House, and that we could hear from the Department, before the House rises for recess.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. It is not really a matter for the Chair, but she is a very experienced Member of the House and I am sure she will talk to the Table Office about the different ways she might raise this matter, perhaps through written questions or directly with Ministers. Obviously, the Treasury Bench has heard what she has to say, so I trust that she will do that as quickly as she can. It is also business questions tomorrow, and she may wish to raise it there.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow the safe entry and exit of right hon. and hon. Members.
Sitting suspended.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Consideration of Lords message

After Clause 10 - Further exclusions from market access principles

Paul Scully: I beg to move,
That this House agrees with Lords amendments 8P, 8Q, 8R, 8S, 8T and 8U.
I am delighted to be able to come back to the House today with positive news for business and for our constituents. As I have said before, I am immensely grateful to colleagues across both Houses for their constructive discussions with Government, and I would like to extend my thanks to all colleagues in both Houses for working with the Government to reach agreement on how we can best ensure that the frictionless intra-UK trade we enjoy today can continue into the future, especially as we recover together from covid-19. As we have made clear, this Bill is about protecting businesses and livelihoods—real people and real jobs—and I am pleased that both Houses have worked constructively to do that. I want to again extend my thanks to colleagues on the Opposition Benches in this place, and in the other place in particular, for their engagement.
As I set out to the House yesterday, the Government are committed to the common frameworks programme. We attach enormous value to the fora that they provide for collaborative working with the devolved Administrations. The Government have also been clear that the market access principles will work in tandem with common frameworks. We have been asked to provide as much clarity as possible on our continuing commitment to the programme, and we have thought long and hard about this over recent weeks. It is important that we respect the flexibility, and also the commonality, of common frameworks, paying close attention to the interests of all parts of the UK involved in the common frameworks programme and protecting the voluntary and consensus-driven nature of the programme. Indeed, these aspects are key to the effectiveness of the processes. The Government have listened carefully and reflected on the points put forward in both Houses about putting common frameworks on the face of the Bill, and we have now done so through these Lords amendments.

Alan Brown: Obviously we welcome some sort of concession on common frameworks, but the Minister said yesterday that enshrining common frameworks in the Bill would create uncertainty for business, so what has changed from last night to today?

Paul Scully: What has changed from last night to today is the convivial and constructive discussions we have had to allow for amendments that are worded to the satisfaction of, certainly, the other place and I hope this place, that will allow us to progress with both the common frameworks as a voluntary process and the certainty of the internal market.

Jonathan Edwards: Before the Minister starts launching the fireworks in celebration of the progress in the Lords yesterday, I would like to remind him that the Welsh Government remain deeply dissatisfied and have announced that they intend taking the UK Government to court over the provisions in the Bill, not least the state aid provisions and the economic intervention proposals. Will he explain how the common frameworks process will work and where power will reside within the common frameworks, because there is a degree of ambiguity about that? Will he also commit the British Government to bringing forward a statement on the common frameworks to the House of Commons for scrutiny in the new year so that we can have a discussion about whether this is actually the best way forward?

Paul Scully: Clearly it is disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen to issue that statement, especially in the light of the productive working relationship that we have enjoyed with their Ministers and officials during the passage of the Bill. I know that the common frameworks have been subject to much debate, and I hope I will be able to clarify this as we go through. There will be more discussion in the new year about the frameworks and how they will work moving forward, because they have been productive in a number of areas to date, and I know that that will continue.

Jim Shannon: I, too, thank the Minister for what he has brought forward, but I seek clarification, as I often do, on the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Will the final decisions on any movement of goods, east-west, north-south, or whatever it may be, lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with this place? Also, what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment?

Paul Scully: Ironically, not particularly on common frameworks or the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, although I have taken over from my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), in the quad discussions with the devolved Administrations. We had my first one this morning, and I look forward to further conversations. As for what happens to Northern Ireland goods to GB and vice versa, we have had an agreement in the Joint Committee. I look forward to seeing the results of the talks that are continuing in Brussels, because ultimately if there is a pathway to a deal, that will help to smooth the transition process. Ultimately, however, the long-term aim of what happens to the workings of the Northern Ireland protocol will sit with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, given their vote in a few years’ time.
The Government here are demonstrating their commitment to the programme by, first, placing common frameworks on the face of the Bill, through our amendments yesterday in the other place, and, secondly, clarifying the relationship that we see between agreements made under the common frameworks processes and the internal market principles established by the Bill. Specifically, we are making it clear, through amendments 8P to 8S, that delegated powers under clauses 10 and 17 may be utilised to, among other things, make provision to reflect  common framework agreements. In such cases, the Secretary of State would be able to bring to the House a statutory instrument to exclude from market access principles a specific agreed area of divergence. That would follow consensus being reached between the UK Governments and all the relevant parties that that was appropriate, in respect of a specific defined topic within a common framework.
For parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, previous amendments are provided for consent to be sought from the devolved Administrations. If that is not forthcoming within a month, MPs and peers from all parts of the UK would thereafter be able to debate and, if appropriate, agree to the change. We do not currently expect such cases to arise very frequently, but want to be clear that appropriate means are in place to respect them when they do.
The amendments to clauses 10 and 17 are complemented by amendments 8T and 8U. In line with other Government amendments to enhance the overall transparency of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the role of the Office for the Internal Market, these amendments demonstrate our commitment to transparency and evidence building regarding the interaction between the market access principles and the common frameworks programme. As part of the OIM’s five-yearly review into the effectiveness of parts 1 to 3 in supporting a healthy internal market, the OIM will now also address how parts 1 to 3 have affected the operation of agreements under common frameworks, including the effect that those agreements have had on the operation of the internal market. This will ensure proper scrutiny of both regulatory changes and the progress made under common frameworks.
The Government are confident that these amendments provide an appropriate way to ensure that market access principles in the Bill can act to ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market for all British businesses and citizens. They do this while allowing a degree of agreed flexibility, reflecting different circumstances in particular parts of the UK. In reaching agreement on these amendments and thus agreeing on the final outstanding issues of the Bill, both Houses will be protecting and preserving the United Kingdom’s internal market, which has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries.

Lucy Powell: Well here we are again—groundhog day. Early on, I dubbed this Bill the infernal market Bill, and it has certainly lived up to that name. It is good to see the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in his seat again. I am not sure what he is going to do in a few weeks’ time after all his doughty energies tackling issues around Brexit. I am not sure whose fault it is all going to be in a few weeks’ time. Perhaps Ministers should watch their backs; they might find it is their fault once Brexit can no longer be blamed for all his ills.
Let me start by thanking Ministers and their officials for the discussions that we have had in recent days about how we can make the best of this bad Bill. Let us be honest: when it first saw the light of day, it was clear for all to see what a terrible Bill this was. It was wrong in seeking to break international law, and it was wrong in disrespecting the devolution settlement and failing to understand the way the UK now works through power sharing. That is why we have been so vociferously opposed to it in this House.
We led the way on that, starting, as you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) taking down every single argument of the Prime Minister, who was here himself on Second Reading. Through the Bill’s many stages in this House, we have been clear in our opposition to some of its serious flaws. It has been a long and difficult process.

Alan Brown: If Labour has really led the way, why did it back down in the votes in the other place on protecting devolution in respect of Westminster’s ability to spend and meddle in devolved affairs?

Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. That is not what happened in the other place. It is thanks to the Labour leadership in the other place that we have seen improvements to the Bill, and I will say a bit more about that in a minute.
The Bill is now in much better shape than it was. It is far from good, let alone perfect, but it is better. That is thanks to the leadership shown by Labour colleagues in the other place, who built alliances and worked with guile and tenacity to get us to where we are. The Government, by the way, have a majority in the other place; despite that, we managed to inflict a number of Government defeats. As a result, the Government dropped most of part 5, which was the international lawbreaking part of the Bill originally and now upholds the Northern Ireland protocol.
After Labour worked cross-party with colleagues and others to ensure successive Government defeats in the other place, and after several rounds of ping-pong—  I have lost count of how many—the Bill has been improved in a number of ways. We have the one-month mechanism for the devolved Administrations’ consent on regulations; the operation of the internal market in the interest of consumers; the consent and involvement of the devolved Administrations on the make-up and operation of the Office for the Internal Market, and the removal and review of the Henry VIII powers.
Today, we welcome the Government’s concessions on common frameworks in response to Lord Hope and Lord Stevenson’s amendments. In particular, amendments to clauses 10 and 17 allow for agreements arising from common frameworks to be excluded from the application of market principles. They also include in the Bill a definition of a common framework agreement, something that we have been seeking from the beginning. We also welcome the amendment to clause 31 that provides for the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office for the Internal Market to include in their five-year reporting details of the interaction between market access principles and common framework agreements, and of the impact of common framework agreements on the operation and development of the internal market.
We have fought long and hard to ensure that the Bill does not undermine devolution, because we believe in devolution. These are important safeguards that really do strengthen the Bill.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Lady will be aware that, as I alluded to earlier, the Labour Government in Wales are threatening legal action. Is that something that she and the Labour party in Westminster will be supporting?

Lucy Powell: I have just been alerted to that. I am not sure of the details at this stage, so it is probably best that I do not comment. However, it is obviously a Labour Administration, and we support them and have worked very closely with them. I thank them for their co-operation with us on the Bill.
Common frameworks will allow different nations in the UK to set their own standards in key areas and to agree minimum standards for all. That is why it was so important to us from the start that there was recognition of common frameworks on the face of the Bill. However, it is still far from ideal, and the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to these issues only because of the pressure we have applied, working tirelessly in the other place, and I pay tribute again to Lord Hope, Lord Stevenson and Baroness Hayter for all their work on this.
It is no thanks to the nationalist parties that we have achieved these concessions. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair yesterday, and they were giving me grief as usual, because their tactic is to engage not in the legislative process and in seeking improvements, but in the politics of grievance. Despite one of them being in government in Scotland and having a sizeable parliamentary group here, it is always somebody else’s fault, isn’t it? They sit at the back of the bus, with their arms folded, shouting at others in order to get a bit of clickbait for social media, which I am sure is what they were doing yesterday. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Labour party has led the charge in opposing this Bill. We have led the Government to the improvements and changes that we see today, and although the Bill is far from perfect, it is much better. We did that because we have to live with this Bill in the years to come.
However, the Government must reflect too. Their starting point could not have got this more wrong. Devolution and power sharing are about finding common ground and agreement, even with those from other democratically elected political parties, such as the nationalist party in Scotland, that we might not agree with. Trying to power- grab and hug powers close does not defeat one’s opponents; it gives them more oxygen and more grievance.
We accept the improvements to date, but we note that they start from a very bad starting point. Some might describe them, as we say up north, as trying to polish a turd.

Bill Cash: I was very taken by the reference the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made to improvement. Having looked at the Bill and followed it over the last few weeks, I find it difficult to call it an improvement.
However, I want to pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. Given the amendments, and the contortions the Public Bill Office has had to absorb in looking at the Reasons Committee’s consideration of these issues and at the question of what insistence on disagreement or agreement is at a particular point in time before it comes from one House to the other and goes back again, this has been an incredible exercise in complexity—so much so that it would be asking an awful lot to expect anybody, including the Minister, to be able to claim that they really understand what it is that has ultimately arrived. I was going to ask him if he would like to explain exactly what all this means. We will only find out in due course.
I was looking at the reasons for disagreeing only yesterday, and they were very clear. One said that the Government disagreed with the Lords over the question of legal certainty and disruption to business. Suddenly, almost at the wave of a magic wand, all of that has completely evaporated into thin air, and we have ended up with this extremely contorted, extremely confusing and ambiguous series of statements. However, at the heart of it, there is one point that I want to put to the Minister. Does he recall the famous Schleswig-Holstein question? Only three people comprehended what was going on, or they had originally, but unfortunately one had forgotten, one had died and the other had gone mad. [Interruption.] I am not going to attribute any one of those to the Minister. However, right at the heart of this, a lot of very complicated drafting has been put in to try to salvage some face. As I read it, the Secretary of State can make these regulations but—this goes to the heart of it—that process would be subject to the affirmative resolution under clause 10(2), which is mirrored in clause 17. It strikes me that there is one fundamental question: can the Minister effectively veto matters that have been discussed and consulted on with the devolved Administration? If the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution, it seems that may well turn out to be the case. Who knows? I do not know at the moment, and only when the process reaches its conclusion will we know whether the reserved powers in the Scotland Act 1998 will bite. I cannot be sure of that. I have a feeling that this may end up in the courts, and perhaps the situation will be made clearer. We are at the end of the line for this Bill, and I regard the whole thing as being difficult to plot in terms of a clear path to any conclusion.

Jonathan Edwards: In the 10 years that I have been in this place, I think this is the first time that I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman on a substantial point. The concession last night in the Lords opens up a number of new questions, and there needs to be a well thought out process regarding how the common frameworks will work, where power will reside within the frameworks, and who has the power to create them. I would like a far more consensual approach than we have seen today.

Bill Cash: I am glad to hear that. I am not sure—we cannot be sure—whether these provisions might eventually be declared void for uncertainty, and I am not clear about what they will do in practice. At least, however, we have got to the end of the Bill. I am in favour of the Bill in principle, and that is about all I need to say for the moment. As far as I am concerned, the future lies ahead with uncertainty built into these provisions.

Drew Hendry: Any improvement to the Bill would be welcomed, but the proposed amendment does nothing to protect the devolution settlement—the Minister said as much in his opening remarks—and the provisions will simply allow this Parliament to overrule Scottish Parliament and Welsh Parliament decisions. It is incredible to hear Labour Front Benchers trying to take credit. They say that they led the way, but they have actually paved the way for this Bill to do that to the Scottish Parliament. They talk about the guile they have shown,  but it is gall that they have when they talk about this. You can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why Labour has only one MP in Scotland.
Instead of taking this Bill apart, as they should have done, those on the Labour Front Bench spend more of their time talking about the democratically elected Members of Parliament that they have here, who, as I pointed out, are in vastly greater numbers than the one Labour MP from Scotland. They are not listening to Scotland—they never do—and Labour has allowed this aberration to come forward in this way by abstaining in the House of Lords.
The amendment does not protect devolution, as I said: the Minister has laid that out clearly today for everybody to hear. Westminster Ministers will still have the right to impose lower food, environmental and other devolved standards on Scotland, regardless of the view of Holyrood. This Bill is the biggest assault on devolution in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines devolved policy making, grabs spending powers, and removes state aid from being a devolved responsibility. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly refused to give this Bill consent, and it is outrageous that the UK Government are once again ignoring the wishes of the people of Scotland as well as Wales.
In welcoming the amendment, Professor Aileen McHarg warned:
“There are still significant problems with this Bill: it changes the scope of devolved decision-making; it reserves additional powers to Westminster; it empowers the UK Government to spend in devolved areas that have nothing to do with markets (eg prisons, sport, international student exchanges); and above all—unlike EU law—it has an inherently asymmetrical effect on decision-making for England and for the devolved territories.
This is a Bill which squarely falls within the scope of the Sewel Convention, and the necessity of which is deeply questionable.”
But of course the Government have not listened to that, and Labour has capitulated on it.
The only reason for this Bill as it now stands is to demolish devolution. If the Government take this Bill forward today, as they obviously will, that is what they will be doing. Any pretence thereafter by the Scottish Tory MPs that they respect the democratic rights of the people of Scotland will be blown apart if they support this today. In fact, they have already supported it, because it seems that it will go through. They have done nothing to protect the democratic rights of the Scottish people.
People in Scotland are watching. People in Scotland, when they see the effects of this Bill, will be angry about the fact that their rights are being taken away by these Tory Ministers, aided by their Labour bedfellows. They will be furious about the fact that their rights are being stripped from them. They are listening, they are watching, and they are seeing developments in this place. They are understanding, now, that the only way to protect their Parliament, their rights and their democracy in Scotland is to go forward as an independent nation—and they will be voting for that, I am sure, in due course.

Wendy Chamberlain: Yesterday I said that there was still time for compromise, so I am glad that the Government have finally gone for some degree of a consensus approach, and there is no doubt that what will be on the statute book is an improvement on the legislation that was initially introduced back in  the autumn. I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s engagement over the Bill. I also thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Lords, who have played an important role, and our staff teams across both Houses.
However, I do still have concerns about the Bill, one of which is about the Office for the Internal Market. The Government need to be transparent about what role that office will play in future trade deals. Can foreign investors in a US trade deal use it to undermine the devolved nations? I have asked that question repeatedly. I am also conscious that the legislative value of this Bill might, in practice, be limited, or indeed pretty much non-existent, especially if we reach a trade deal and a standards agreement with the EU. We obviously need more clarity on this, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out yesterday, these changes, while positive, are too late, because the damage has already been done. The Minister heard the speeches of SNP Members yesterday, but I wonder whether he listened. With this Bill, the Government have been pouring fuel on a fire, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I ask the Minister: what has this all been worth? If the Government are committed to the future of the United Kingdom, they need to start acting like it.
I cannot count the number of newspaper articles I have read over the past year reporting a reset in the Government’s approach to the Union, that a new Cabinet Committee has been set up to finally solve the Government’s problem as regards relations with the devolved nations, or that the Prime Minister is going to love-bomb Scotland. I urge the Government: this is not about Committees, or grand new offices in Edinburgh, or bridges or tunnels over or under the Irish sea. Those of my constituents who are uncertain about where they want Scotland’s future to lie will not be convinced by Union Jacks on UK Government infrastructure projects: cack-handed stuff, as the passage of this Bill clearly indicates. What they will be convinced by is a UK Government who treat the devolved nations with respect, maturity and honesty, and who work together with the devolved nations to find consensus, because I do believe that we have too much in common for borders to divide us. Are we in this place capable of that? I like to believe we are, but for too many of my constituents, it has not felt like that over the last few months with this Bill.
So I do urge the Government: compromise and consensus were the reluctant final steps they took with regard to this Bill. Noting the comments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) in relation to the Welsh Government’s statement, let the first steps the Government take in their future relationship with the devolved nations be that compromise and consensus.

Deidre Brock: I suppose it is good to see that the Government have finally admitted that they have to listen to the concerns being raised about their appalling ignorance over devolution and how the UK currently works. Is it not bizarre that the unelected bunch along the corridor had more appreciation of the democratic deficit at the heart of the UK than the Government of “reclaiming sovereignty” fame?
It is appalling too—I have to say this—that the loyal and spineless Opposition betrayed generations of Scottish Labour activists and politicians who fought to establish devolution and battled their own party sometimes, but who learned to work across civic Scotland to deliver it. I think they must not have heard the warnings of Scottish Labour Action that a powerful devolved Administration in Scotland were not a frippery, but an absolutely essential counterpoint to Westminster and Whitehall blindness to issues anywhere outside the south-east of England. I expect nothing better from the Tories, but the Labour party has betrayed its own members and the activists who spent so long on the Calton Hill vigil. This desperate attempt to appeal to Tory values to try to bury the incompetence of the previous leadership might seem a decent old political strategy, but it renders the existence of the Labour party utterly meaningless.
In any case, we finally have a nod to the devolution settlement, even if it has been forced by the House of Lords. In yesterday’s debate, the Minister said this legislation was about devolution, demonstrated that it was about dismantling devolution and failed to answer any of the questions raised during the debate. It seems that Ministers in this UK Government no longer seek to engage in discussion, but instead merely fling pre-written barbs that they clearly think are clever. It is not clear whether they know how to debate and choose not to, or do not actually have command of their brief. Either way, it is unfitting for a Minister and no way to run a Government.
Instead of offering amendments to this elected Chamber yesterday or at any point during the passage of this Bill, the Government arranged their business in the unelected Chamber—somewhere it clearly feels most comfortable, among the privileged and away from the bother of the concerns of the people we represent. Those amendments, I will grant, go a little way towards addressing some of the concerns that have been raised, but I suggest that they were driven more by a desire to mollify cantankerous Lords than by the need to create decent legislation. They are tiny baby steps in the right direction at the time we needed giant strides and they leave, as we have already heard, reams of unanswered questions—how disputes between Governments will be resolved, for example, and how consumers can be protected from unthinking and uncaring Prime Ministers, for another.
The amendments will also embed an imbalance in the framework of a post-Brexit UK that will see England’s Government outweigh the other Governments in any negotiation, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out. He put his finger on the exact nub of this problem. England’s Government will outweigh the other Governments in any negotiation, because it continues to claim overlordship as the supposed Government of the UK. Labour might be interested in looking at that, because it echoes the democratic deficit that drove the creation of the devolved Administrations in the first place.

Bill Cash: I personally have always believed that there should have been a referendum of the whole United Kingdom over the devolution question. I put down my own amendment back in 1997, and half the Conservative party went against a three-line Whip and followed me into the Lobby. That is the real way to get consent. I believe in the Union, and I believe that there  should never have been devolution other than through a United Kingdom referendum, if it was going to happen at all.

Deidre Brock: I do not want to be rude to the hon. Gentleman, but he presents us with a glorious example of exactly why many on the SNP Benches want to get away from this House of Commons.
Scotland faces the same situation as we did in the last quarter of the last century: a UK Government of a hue that we did not vote for and would not support are riding roughshod over the interests of the Scottish people and will ignore them if they can. This Bill will pass today, but the debate will continue, and we have not yet begun to fight.

Alan Brown: I would like to briefly add to what my colleagues have said. We welcome some sort of recognition of the common frameworks. There is a lot still to be teased out in terms of how that will work. We know that Westminster’s sovereignty will overrule things, and that is still a big concern, but we welcome that measure. I still do not understand how the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said that common frameworks could not be enshrined in the Bill, because it would be so bad and would cause businesses uncertainty, and now he says, “We’ve listened to the Lords, and everything’s okay.” It would be good if he could clarify that when he sums up.
Despite what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, Labour did not lead the way on this. Labour gave up on devolution, and it gave up in the other place. Labour did not even back my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) in the Reasons Committee. Labour sat on its hands in the vote in that Committee. Lord Stevenson said, “We will not divide the House.” That is giving up. Labour gave up in the Lords.
Let us look at clause 48 and what Labour gave up on. Westminster is now allowed to provide infrastructure at places in the United Kingdom, including infrastructure connected with any of the other purposes mentioned. That infrastructure includes water, which is still publicly owned in Scotland, electricity, gas, telecoms, sewerage—also publicly owned in Scotland—railway facilities and roads or other transport facilities. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that paves the way for the glorious Union bridge or Union tunnel that we do not want and do not need, because we can invest better in transport infrastructure ourselves.
There is no doubt that the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament, making decisions for the people of Scotland on behalf of the people of Scotland and representing the people who elected them. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? No. As I was saying, the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. MSPs are answerable to the people who elected them. Unfortunately, we have a right- wing Tory Government who Scotland did not elect, and now they are free to overrule us. Labour backed down. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Manchester Central said; Labour backed down and gave up.
The Bill allows Westminster to spend not only in Scotland but in Wales, overruling the Welsh Labour Government on health, education, culture, sports facilities, court or prison facilities and housing. We are leading the way in building social housing in Scotland. We ended the right to buy. The Tories obviously still think that the right to buy is a good thing, forcing councils to get rid of their housing stock. How dare Westminster legislate to provide housing in Scotland—we have done very well without your help, thank you very much.
State aid is something else that Labour gave up on. It has been stated clearly that state aid was never a reserved function, and therefore it was devolved to the four nations, so why is Westminster taking it back? Does it think that that sends out a good message?
People are watching. Studies in Scotland have shown time and again that people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament to legislate and invest in these matters over Westminster, so why Westminster thinks it can do a better job is beyond me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it looks like independence is the only way that we can protect the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Bring it on.

Paul Scully: Let me quickly answer a few points.My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked for a bit more detail on the amendments. In the small number of cases in which the market access principles apply to divergence agreed under a common framework, clauses 10 and 17 could be used to exclude the agreement from the market access principles. The Secretary of State would be able to do so following a consensus agreement that that was appropriate under the common framework. That is the appropriate way to ensure that the market access principles in the Bill can ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market while still respecting agreed limited divergence under the common frameworks programme.
Originally, Lord Hope’s amendments would have required the Secretary of State to exclude any divergence agreed under the common frameworks process from market access principles; by contrast, the Government’s amendment makes it clear that this is an option open to the Secretary of State, thereby giving the Secretary of State the discretion to ensure that the disapplication of the market access principles would never lead to the emergence of unacceptable trade barriers within the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about the CMA, the OIM and what would happen with international players. The CMA and the OIM have the flexibility to investigate and report on any issues that they choose, but they are not themselves decision makers on market access principles. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have made sure that both the OIM and the Bill itself will apply rules to each part of the UK—to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—equally.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the Minister for his response, but will he accept that, in the letter he wrote to the Scottish Affairs Committee after his appearance before the Committee in relation to the Bill, he was unable definitively to rule out foreign investors being able to take the UK Government to court, whether through the OIM or otherwise?

Paul Scully: In establishing the Office for the Internal Market through this Bill, I wanted to make sure that it was not the Office for the Internal Market itself that it would be able to work through, so that is within the purview of this particular part of the Bill.
The hon. Member for North East Fife talked about about the fact that when we talk about devolution it is not about Committees, and I totally agree: it is about dialogue, consensus and giving business certainty. This is in stark contrast to what we have seen from the Scottish National party, which walked away from discussions about the internal market in 2019. That is no way to build consensus and to have that dialogue. If the SNP and the Scottish Government want to talk about ending the right to buy and to go with that to the council house-owning residents in their electorate, that is up to them. We are not talking about devolved parts of housing; when we talk about spending or any of these other issues, it is complementary to what the Scottish Government, or indeed the Welsh Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly, are doing within their devolved rights.

Drew Hendry: Once again, the Minister has talked about the Scottish Government walking away from the internal market discussions; of course, the internal market discussions led on to this Bill—we knew it was going to be a bad move forward. The Scottish Government engaged constructively, and continue to be willing to do so, in the common frameworks discussions. The Minister should make that clear when he makes that point about the internal market discussions. On the matter of housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out, the Government can now interfere in and overrule legislation in Scotland.

Paul Scully: No, this is about spreading. I readily accept that the discussions on common frameworks continue, and I very much welcome that. As I say, common frameworks go wider than just trade and the measures covered in the Bill. None the less, to walk away from discussions on the internal market a full year or 18 months before we reached this position is really to walk away from the responsibility to help to shape the discussions, as we have seen in the more fruitful conversations with the Welsh Senedd, including in recent days.
We heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) talk about pre-written barbs, but time and again when we have come back to this place it has just been a rehearsal of the arguments not about the devolution settlement or the Bill itself, but about independence. It has been the same debate time and again, instead of Members involving themselves in the detail of the Bill and giving certainty to business.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Scully: I will not give way.
I finish by thanking everyone who spoke in the debate, and by once again thanking all hon. and right hon. Members and noble Lords who have engaged with the   Bill over the last few weeks. I thank the Public Bill Office for its support to all Members and officials across Government. I pay tribute to the entire ministerial team across both Houses and all Departments, who have worked jointly to deliver the Bill—in particular, Lord Callanan, Lord True and the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I also pay tribute to Yasmin Kalhori and the team of the Leader of the House of Lords.
I welcome the contributions and the constructive discussions that we have had in recent days with Opposition Members in both Houses that have got us to this place. We have had some passionate debates on the Bill, because of the importance of the issues. However, the Bill will ensure that UK businesses can trade across the four parts of the UK in a way that helps them to invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. I am therefore delighted to ask the House to agree to the amendments, and to complete our scrutiny and consideration of the Bill.

Drew Hendry: This is an outrage to Scotland. It is not acceptable.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and he knows that. [Interruption.] This is just showing off. He should resume his seat, otherwise I will name him and order him to leave. [Interruption.] Does he want to be named? Is that what is happening? [Interruption.] If that is what is happening, we can do it. [Interruption.] Okay—I will name him. I know what he is doing. [Interruption.] Oh, for goodness’ sake! Very childish.
Drew Hendry, Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was named by the Deputy Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44),
That Drew Hendry be suspended from the service of the House.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker directed Drew Hendry to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Main Question again proposed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with Lords amendments 8P, 8Q, 8R, 8S, 8T and 8U.

Rosie Winterton: We will suspend for three minutes, in order to allow safe exit and entry.
Sitting suspended.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Helen Jones to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2025; and that Her Majesty will re-appoint Sir Robert Owen to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2023.
The Speaker’s Committee has produced a report—its first report of 2020— in relation to this motion. It may help if I set out the key points for the record. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority board members are appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Under the Act, the Speaker is responsible for overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment to the IPSA. The names of any candidates to be members of the IPSA must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for the IPSA. The Act also states:
“At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who has held (but no longer holds) high judicial office (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005…At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who is qualified under Schedule 3 to the National Audit Act 1983…to be an auditor for the National Audit Office...One of the members of the IPSA…must be a person who has been (but is no longer) a member of the House of Commons.”
On this occasion, the vacancies are for a former Member of the House of Commons and a former holder of high judicial office.
The terms of office of the current incumbents come to an end on 31 December this year. Jenny Willott, the former MP currently serving on the IPSA board, is stepping down at the end of her term. I would like to put on record our thanks to her for her service. As is normal for these appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel who conducted the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by former civil service commissioner, Mark Addison. The other members of the panel were Cindy Butts, a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the IPSA, and Richard Lloyd, the interim chairman of the IPSA. The panel reported back to the Speaker’s Committee with a list of candidates that it assessed as being appointable to each role. The Speaker’s Committee considered the report at its meeting last week. It agreed with Mr Speaker that Helen Jones should be appointed to the former Member of the House of Commons position, and that Sir Robert Owen should be reappointed to the former holder of high judicial office position.
Helen Jones, who will be familiar to many Members, was the popular Member for Warrington North from 1997 to 2019. She chaired the Petitions Committee with distinction from 2015 to 2019. [Interruption.] Somebody has a telephone call coming in; I hope it is important. Helen Jones previously served as an Opposition spokesman, senior Government Whip and Parliamentary Private Secretary. Prior to entering the House, she worked as a solicitor, a teacher and a justice and peace officer in the Liverpool archdiocese. Sir Robert Owen is the current incumbent and has served as an IPSA board member  since 2016. He was a judge in the Queen’s bench division of the High Court, a nominated judge of the administrative court and the presiding judge of the western circuit. He also chaired the Litvinenko inquiry in 2014-15.
If the appointments are made, Helen Jones will serve on IPSA for five years and Sir Robert Owen will serve a further three-year term. I hope that the House will support these appointments, and we wish the candidates well in these important roles. I commend the motion to the House.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for setting out in full the background to these appointments. The Opposition support the motion, but I want to say a couple of words about Sir Robert Owen. I am pleased that a person of his stature has agreed to be reappointed. Helen Jones has served in this House, as the Leader of the House has outlined, as Chair of the Petitions Committee. I know that both will bring their expertise on this important body. Her Majesty’s Opposition support everything that the Leader of the House has said and support the motion.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion in our proceedings this evening, and of course we support both candidates and we wish them both well. I think we are all familiar with Helen Jones, who has such a distinguished record of service to the House, and wish her well in her deliberations. I think we can all trust that our interests will be looked after by the IPSA.
This process has followed the best possible practice in the House and is an exemplar for how we do these things. What we did was select from a wide range of people who came forward with the necessary experience. What was required was a practical engagement with the House, and the way the process was handled was a credit to the House. We can only compare that with what happened a couple of weeks ago, which was an absolute and utter disgrace and an embarrassment to this House, when this House turned down what the Commission had decided for lay members of the Standards Committee.
We should look at both examples: one, a best-practice exemplar of how we do things; the other, a disgrace that will do nothing but discourage good people from coming forward and offering their services to this House. We should be doing everything possible to get people such as Helen Jones and Robert Owen, not turning them away by changing the criteria halfway through the process, when it had been agreed by the Commission. I hope we never, ever get into such a situation again, that what we are doing today is the gold standard for how we make such appointments to the House, and that we never, ever revisit the shambles of a couple of weeks ago, with the lay members of the Standards Committee.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thought we were going to achieve a degree of pre-Christmas consensus. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was  unfair to the House of Commons. In any process where this House is the final decision maker, it must not be deemed, thought or considered to be a mere rubber stamp. Any process that ends in this House must always do so with the House being free to choose as it sees fit. That is why under statute there is provision for this debate. It is therefore limited to 90 minutes—although that seems to be more time than will be taken on this occasion—but this House should never view itself as a cipher or a rubber stamp.
These issues are important, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have two very fine candidates on this occasion. To have a former judge of the stature of Sir Robert Owen is exactly what we need and gives confidence to Members that matters will be handled fairly. I also think it was important to have Helen Jones—somebody who had served in the House for a long time and thoroughly understood the ways of the House, and who, as Chairman of the Petitions Committee, showed how effectively she can work on a cross-party basis—because we want this committee to achieve consensus and to work well for the interests of the House, while also defending taxpayers’ interests in the use of their money. I am therefore grateful for the broad support, but it is important to remember that this House, when it is the final arbiter, is an uninhibited arbiter.
Question put and agreed to.

Petition - Railway between Stoke and Leek

Jonathan Gullis: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North Staffordshire.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of North Staffordshire;
Declares that improving rail infrastructure and providing better rail services in our city and wider North Staffordshire is vital for the growth of our local economy; notes that over 1,000 constituents have signed a corresponding petition asking to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek; further declares that it would create jobs and unlock the potential of unused brownfield sites in our area; and further that it would greatly benefit commuters and passengers.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take such action as is necessary to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002639]

Border Carbon Adjustment Tariffs and Decarbonisation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T.C. Davies.)

Jerome Mayhew: Border carbon adjustment: it may not trip off the tongue, but this is not a dull subject. This policy is the stuff that dreams are made of.
I ask hon. Members to imagine that, as they settle down in their beds, they start to wonder how we could create the economic environment for levelling up in our manufacturing heartlands, giving them a low-carbon head start on the rest of the world. As they turn over and start to count the fluffy sheep jumping over a fence, they catch sight of a free market that naturally seeks out the most effective way to reach carbon net zero and deliver on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. Finally, just as they drift off to sleep, they glimpse, as in a glass darkly, a Government leading the world at COP26, achieving an international approach that brings co-operation and rapprochement with our European and American friends and allies. Could this be real, or must it evermore remain but a dream?
Well, this is no dream, and we can turn it into reality with a border carbon adjustment. We know we need to reduce carbon to net zero by 2050, and centuries of experience have taught us that the free market is without equal in being able to solve challenging economic problems such as this. Yet, right now, our free market stands helplessly by, its creativity and innovation useless.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward. He is right about the Prime Minister’s statement on environmental issues. Does he agree that we now have the potential to make a real and lasting change for the better by implementing environmental changes, but that we must also be aware that the pressure on businesses must allow them to continue to operate and not put them out of business? There is a balance to be got, I believe, and we have an obligation not only to the industry, but to the environment to get it right.

Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is one of the great benefits of a border adjustment: it allows us to raise domestic costs without being unfairly undercut by international imports coming in. We can square the circle. We can support the environment by setting a carbon price that is sufficient to change people’s behaviour, to make lower-carbon products more attractive in the economy than higher-carbon products, while at the same time facilitating our domestic industry to remain competitive.
It is because we cannot price carbon emissions that our market is currently floundering. The reason is that they are an externality. When I produce a piece of paper, I take account of the cost of the ingredients for the paper, the energy I will use, my overheads, my marketing spend, my transport and distribution costs, and my profit. However, in the free market exchange with my purchaser, the cost to society of the emission of carbon through that manufacturing process is not currently  accounted for, because it is dissipated into the environment and we cannot put a price on it. That is why we have market failure on the price of carbon.
Sowhat do the Government do to try to deal with that market failure? They are left in a very difficult position. They try to change behaviour by announcing a reduction in targets, making piecemeal regulations as and when they become available, and picking innovation winners—we have a list, most recently hydrogen and modular new nuclear, to name but two. I very much hope the Government have got those expensive choices right. Based on the available evidence I believe that they have, but that is the point: only a properly functioning market finds the best way to allocate capital, with its invisible use of the combined knowledge of the sum of all the participants in that market. No Government can match that combined wisdom.
Our current approach to carbon pricing simply does not work. If we raise the cost of energy with our higher cost of carbon, our industry simply becomes uncompetitive, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out a moment ago. Manufacturing simply moves abroad, or it goes bust and its place is taken by the raft of imports from higher-carbon countries—in addition to the very high cost of carbon in the import process and transport—like China. The result is damaging to jobs. It is, of course, damaging to our business. It is very damaging to our balance of trade. It is very damaging to our tax base and it is damaging to the climate. All in all, it is a damaging disaster.
Border carbon adjustment can transform that process: charge imports from a high- carbon economy the same carbon cost as we impose on our domestic industry via a BCA and the problem is solved. There would be no incentive for our manufacturers to base production abroad, since the costs would be equalised. Foreign companies would no longer have an unfair trade advantage. In fact, it would provide them with a direct incentive to reduce carbon usage in their domestic environment to avoid corrective tariffs. From a policy perspective—I am using China as an example—the Chinese Government would have a choice: either their exports pay a carbon price at our border and the money goes to our Exchequer; or they create a carbon price in their domestic market and they get to keep the money themselves. There is, therefore, a really positive incentive internationally for carbon reduction and the benefits to be spread. After all, climate change knows no borders. Better still, using the same calculation for border carbon adjustment but this time in reverse, our own factories would get the benefit of a carbon cost rebate at the border when they export, making their exports both cheaper and more profitable, increasing our competitiveness already on the international market.
There are many ways that you can skin this particular cat, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can either design a system whereby all products coming in or out of the United Kingdom have their carbon contribution assessed, or, if that is considered to be too complex, we can take baby steps. We can start off by applying a BCA towards the five or six most carbon-intensive industries and then take it from there. We would start with steel, fertiliser, petrochemicals, aluminium and energy. I will take two examples from that list by way of explanation.
First of all, with steel, an independent research project has been undertaken to assess the impact of a border adjustment tariff on the steel industry. Its conclusions were that were we to implement a BCA in the United Kingdom, it would increase the competitiveness of UK steel against many of its international competitors, at the same time as raising for the Treasury a tax windfall of between £270 million and £850 million if that carbon price was set at between £50 and £75 per tonne.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly sophisticated argument. On international competition, can he tell us what other countries are doing? For example, is the EU considering something along these lines?

Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend has anticipated a point in my speech
that I was coming to in a few minutes. He is absolutely right that, just in July this year, the EU started a formal consultation on the implementation of the border carbon adjustment process for the entire European Union—and not just there, but he will have to wait a moment or two before I come on to the other exciting news.
Let us look at steel. We can get a huge amount of tax benefit, plus increased competition, that will give a fair, competitive advantage to our domestic steel.

Anthony Browne: I commend my hon. Friend and his campaign for border carbon adjustment payments, which makes absolute sense. There is no reason why people who are not green should get a competitive advantage over those countries that are leading in the battle to become carbon neutral. My question is a somewhat technical one: we have a very complex economy, how do we work out which products need border carbon adjustment payments and which ones do not, or do we just focus on one key industry, or do we try to do it across the board?

Jerome Mayhew: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The answer is that there are many different ways that we could approach it. The simplest would be to choose the five or six key carbon-heavy industries and start with them. As we get more knowledge of how to implement this kind of scheme, we could spread out to the wider economy. I suggest that the best way to do that would be to look at the carbon-emitting credentials of the energy market in the third country and assess in broad terms what its carbon contribution is. For example, in China, the coal contribution to the energy mix is between 70% and 80% and we would use that as the basis for the carbon contribution of its imports. When we get a bit more sophisticated, we could look at giving rebates to individual businesses that can demonstrate that they have a low-carbon approach despite the high-carbon attitude of their country as a whole. That would benefit behaviour and would not be protectionist, but would merely be a fair assessment of the carbon cost of transactions.
Moving on to energy, we naturally assume that we create all the energy that we use in this country domestically, but that is not the case. On average, we import, via undersea interconnectors, about 7% of the electricity that we use in this country. Members may recall that, last May, we trumpeted in the press that we had a  two-week period in which we were coal free. We had coal-free electricity for two weeks. That was very exciting, but what the newspapers failed to mention was that, during that two-week period, we imported from Holland 40 GW of coal-fired electricity. The reason that we did that was not that we lacked generating capacity in the United Kingdom, but that it was cheaper to import coal-fired electricity from mainland Europe than it was to use our own. The reason why it was cheaper was that it was entirely tax-free, whereas we imposed a carbon tax on the generation of our own domestic electricity. Unbelievably, we actually incentivise the importation of high-carbon coal-generated electricity at the expense of our domestic manufacturing processes. How can that be right? A border carbon adjustment would sort that out in a jiffy.
What single better way is there to forward this Government’s levelling-up agenda than by putting in place the economic conditions for the market to want to re-industrialise in the UK, and all that with no need for Government subsidies. In fact, not only does it not require Government subsidies but it will actually produce an annual windfall for the Treasury year after year. Working out how big that windfall might be has a number of imponderables in it, but the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment has produced a report on this and, again, using the assessment of a carbon price between £50 and £75 a tonne, starting in 2020 and working up towards 2030, it assessed that the gross amount that the Treasury could recover under this process would max out at £36.7 billion a year. I stress that that is the gross amount. Members may well take the view that, rather like VAT, this is a tax that is consumer based and would impact poorer households disproportionately as a percentage of their gross income. The Government might very well want to use some of that £36.7 billion to cushion the blow and to make it more acceptable for lower-income families, perhaps by investing in insulation for their houses or other measures.

Duncan Baker: My hon. Friend is making a fascinating speech—despite starting off talking about sheep, he has managed to keep everyone’s enthusiastic attention throughout. A lot of emissions-intensive British industries will already find it difficult to compete in the global marketplace. As we begin to encourage the use of carbon capture and clean hydrogen by heavy industry, they will face higher production costs. Would a border carbon adjustment enable heavy industry to decarbonise while preventing job losses, and is that something the Treasury would also find attractive?

Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, because one of the key benefits of a border carbon adjustment is that it would allow us to decarbonise, and allow our heavy industry to accept the pain of higher energy costs, therefore letting the market work in our domestic market to incentivise the development of lower-carbon technology, while at the same time protecting it from being undercut by countries that are taking a little longer to go on the low-carbon journey.
We are not going to be spending money; we are going to be making money. That money could be used as the Treasury knows best. It does not mean that the money is taken out of the economy, because it could be put straight back in—in productivity-enhancing tax cuts, I hope, but that is up to the Treasury.
Best of all—I have saved the best till last—by freeing up the ability to price domestic carbon emissions at a realistic, behaviour-changing level, we can unleash the magic of the free market to seek out the most efficient solutions to low-carbon production. We do not need the Government to pick winners and subsidise industry once a market is working properly. Give a price to carbon, and that is exactly what we will create: a many-headed monster of innovation, entrepreneurialism, dynamism and efficient, productive capital growing our low-carbon future.
This future, if we are brave enough to embrace it before other nations, rather than just following, and if we are bold enough to allow the reshaping of the economy by demand rather than by direction, will equip our industry as leaders in low-carbon manufacturing. They will be leaders because they will be swimming in their natural element, whereas their international competitors will still be struggling to react to the short-term Government green initiatives and schemes that we all currently suffer from. It is a lead that could generate exports and growth in this country.
What is stopping us from delivering on the Prime Minister’s vision of a low-carbon, dynamic economy? Some worry about a protectionism challenge at the World Trade Organisation, but with a BCA applied in an open and transparent manner, nothing could be further from the truth. This policy is about removing unfair competition, not creating it. In any event, WTO rules expressly allow for tariffs whose purpose is to protect
“human, animal or plant life and health”
or
“to conserve exhaustible natural resources”.
Those are two exceptions tailor-made for this kind of tariff.
More practically, if the UK were to join the United States of America, our friends in the European Union and other countries to establish the principle of BCAs at COP26, that would be a game changer, because that would ensure their practical acceptance. Others worry that putting forward such an ambitious proposal at COP26 runs the risk of failing to achieve the consensus that would allow the PR men to claim a stunning success. It might, but the risk of failure is the price of ambition, so should we give up on our ambition? Of course not.

Bernard Jenkin: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the application of WTO rules, but what happens if a free trade agreement is already in place? Would that free trade agreement have to be renegotiated? Suppose we have a free trade agreement with the EU and we want to put a carbon tariff on German steel, which is very carbon intensive. Are we going to be tied in knots by what we might have already agreed? How does he think that would be resolved?

Jerome Mayhew: The example that my hon. Friend gives—that of Germany—would fall neatly into the European Union, which is consulting on this very issue, so in that case, it would be a coalition of the willing to allow us to go forward, I hope, with a form of equality between the European emissions trading scheme, or its  successor, and the approach that we would take ourselves. However, I accept that that would be up to country-by-country negotiations.
Is there international support for this approach? Do we have a realistic prospect of bringing the world community together and with us at COP26? I say that there is, because President-elect Biden has already spoken about “carbon adjustment fees” against
“countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.”
That is a clear indicator that the incoming Administration in America is taking this seriously. I know that there is many a slip between a statement of intent and action, but it is something that we can potentially get behind at COP26. The European Union, as has been mentioned, just this July launched a formal consultation on the implementation of a border carbon adjustment, and it is worth noting that for the President of the Commission—I think it was part of her manifesto when she was first appointed— this is one of the key objectives for her presidency.

Anthony Browne: I commend my hon. Friend on his absolutely fascinating speech. It is clearly good to try to get global co-operation on this as a coalition of the willing, as he put it, among as many countries and trading partners as possible. If we fail to do that, does he think that the UK should go on its own, or would that be too difficult and put us too much out on a limb in the global trading system?

Jerome Mayhew: I say that we go it alone. I think it is one of the great freedoms that we have from Brexit. We have taken the trouble to get our independence. What use is it if we are not prepared to use it—if we are too scared to use our independence to make a bold statement and say, “This is the right thing to do. We are going to do it. Follow us if you like.”?

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to hear the depth with which the hon. Member is exploring this subject. What he has been saying is fascinating. Does he agree, though, that if it is about the right thing to do, the first thing we must do is to stop the subsidies and tax concessions that currently go to carbon industries domestically, and that it only makes sense as part of a whole package if we do that?

Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Member recognises that we are on a journey in our decarbonisation of industry. I would be delighted if I managed to persuade the Minister to accept this one element of the policy without rewriting the entire economic agenda for the next period, but it is clearly true that, over time, we will be moving away from petrochemicals, and the economic case—the business case—for subsidising what will soon become stranded assets becomes less and less clear.
Our hosting of COP26 would be the perfect forum to crystallise these disparate movements that we have already identified around the world into a coherent whole. What better objective for the conference could there be? Politics is full of mis-steps and compromise. Very rarely do the stars align in favour of a truly inspiring act of political and economic leadership—one that can transform the future of our country and the world for the better.  The stars are aligning for border carbon adjustments, if only the Government will believe in the Prime Minister’s vision of a post-Brexit Britain and be bold.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) gave a compelling and fascinating speech. He elucidated many of the technical difficulties associated with imposing unilaterally, as he was arguing, a carbon border tax. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) hit the nail on the head when he asked, “Should we do this unilaterally?” I am going to start by saying that, in my view and in the Government’s view, this is an important subject but it has to be treated as part of a multilateral effort. We are responsible for 1% of carbon emissions globally, and if we impose a tax unilaterally on carbon-emitting products coming into this country, we may well be disadvantaging our own consumers if others around the world are not placing such a tax. The Government feel that multilateral co-operation in this regard is by far the best way to prevent carbon leakage.
Another thing I would say to my hon. Friend is that by focusing on carbon emissions, he is really discussing the thorny issue of carbon accounting. Ultimately, the intellectual difficulty of accounting for carbon is the broader problem of whether the carbon is produced abroad or at home. In that respect, I would like to refer him to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his announcement in this Chamber a little more than a month ago. I am proud that he announced that the UK would become the first G20 country to make Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures-aligned climate-related financial disclosures fully mandatory across the economy.
I am not saying that my hon. Friend said this, but I do not think it is right to say that we are somehow laggards on the issue of carbon accounting. In fact, I would say that we are taking a leadership role on this subject. He alluded to the fact that the EU is looking at how it can implement a carbon import regime with a tax on carbon-emitting products coming into the EU, and we are absolutely engaged with the EU in discussing that. We feel that that is part of the multilateral approach.
If my hon. Friend takes a broad view of this subject internationally, he will see that 2020 has seen far greater progress than any previous year. Only a couple of months ago the Chinese Government pledged to achieve a net zero carbon target in 2060, and that is incredibly significant. I remember when I was first appointed to this job, someone said to me that what we did in the United Kingdom would make no difference if China continued along its present path. I am pleased to say that China has changed its path and said very clearly that it has set a net zero target for 2060. The Japanese followed suit soon afterwards, adopting our target of 2050, as did the South Koreans. So the auspices for international co-operation on the measure that my hon. Friend has described are actually very good, and there is a chance that if we cannot reach an agreement at COP26 next November, we may well be advancing along the lines that he suggests in the not-too-distant future. I have to stress that multilateral co-operation on how we price carbon and how we account for carbon in the round is far more constructive than placing a unilateral tax in the way that he has described.
One thing I would say about the figures that my hon. Friend very ably quoted in regard to the benefit to the Treasury is that there would obviously be behavioural impacts, so it would be difficult for me to model the consumer demand for products that had been taxed in the way that he has described. I would be interested to have a conversation with him about the assumptions behind the analysis that he very ably referred to in his excellent speech.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has said something that I regard as significant. Yes, we are going to try to achieve a multilateral approach at COP26, but if we do not succeed, we will consider a more unilateral approach. I am bound to say at this particular juncture, when the term “level playing field” is so commonly spoken about in respect of a certain negotiation, that it would surely be a distortion of international competition for some countries to be doing their best to deal with climate change and for other countries to be exploiting those efforts. If that is not a distortion of genuine free trade, I do not know what is. I think that the unilateral approach is justified.

Kwasi Kwarteng: This is an interesting debate. My hon. Friend suggests that a unilateral approach, punishing other countries for not adopting the climate change agenda—that is effectively what we would be doing—might work. As I have had to say repeatedly, I think that a multilateral approach is the best way forward. There is an open debate about the effectiveness of a unilateral approach when every other country in the world would not be disadvantaging these products.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Minister recognise that at the moment, £10.5 billion of public money goes from the Treasury as subsidy to fossil fuels in this country? That is more than any other country in the EU, where the average is about £6.5 billion. Therefore, if we are to go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and his colleagues on the Government Benches, it is important that the UK shows good faith and does not punish other countries for what it is doing worse itself. To punish those countries for the carbon encapsulated in their industries while subsidising our own fossil fuel industries more than all the rest would seem rather ridiculous.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is exactly what I was trying to say with regard to TCFD disclosures. We have to look at carbon accounting and carbon pricing in the round. It is a global market and we have to look at what we are doing on discouraging carbon-emitting behaviour in the wider context of international trade. That is a fair point.

Barry Gardiner: So will the Minister speak with the Chancellor about how we can reduce the subsidies to fossil fuels in this country—domestically—so that some of the innovative ideas that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) has put forward this evening might be taken forward with credibility? [Interruption.]

Kwasi Kwarteng: Sorry—I was just respectfully pointing out to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that he cannot intervene on an intervention.
I am very happy to take up that point. Of course, I discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor all the time how we can capture carbon accounting more effectively in order to pursue the goal that we all seek, which is a net zero world and certainly a net zero British economy.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Kwasi Kwarteng: No, I have to make some progress.
Ahead of COP26, obviously, as the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned, we have to look at carbon accounting in the round, and we have to look at how we reduce incentives for carbon-emitting activity here in the UK and in the context of the imported carbon that we bring in from other countries. All these issues have to be addressed in the round.
What I wanted to say, and have said very clearly, is that we are actual leaders in this subject. We are actually driving ahead mandatory TCFD financial disclosures. There are no other countries in the G20 that have done that. We passed the net zero amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008 last year. Again, even though other countries have made public statements supporting that policy, they have yet to enshrine it in their in their legal codes. We are showing leadership. We intend fully to continue showing leadership and providing that sort of steer at COP26 in Glasgow.

Jerome Mayhew: The Minister has repeatedly said that the best way to proceed is by multilateral agreement, and I absolutely agree. It is wonderful that we have COP26 coming up next year, and it is the perfect opportunity to show multilateral leadership. Will the Minister therefore commit to the House that we will make border carbon adjustments a core objective of COP26?

Kwasi Kwarteng: It is not in my power to make that commitment to the House. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not the COP26 president, and I suggest that he directs that question to my right hon. Friend the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, who is the president of COP26. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue is absolutely at the centre of the wider debate about climate change and of what I might call international energy diplomacy, and I am sure it will discussed very seriously at COP26 next year.

Bernard Jenkin: I just want to put something on the record. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) quoted a £10 billion subsidy figure for fossil fuels. Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not accept that figure? It is based on things such as the fact that we charge only 5% VAT on domestic fuel instead of 20%. It is typical of the EU to regard a low tax to help poorer households afford their fuel bills as a subsidy. One of the reasons we are leaving the EU is that it puts out rubbish propaganda such as that. We do not subsidise fossil fuels, and I hope the Minister will make that clear.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is right. It is pretty extraordinary to say that we are somehow the laggards on this subject. When a country such as Germany is phasing out its coal dependency only in 2038, it is a bit  extraordinary for Opposition Members to make that claim. We are very much the leaders in this arena, and my hon. Friend was quite right to point that out.

Barry Gardiner: rose—

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am not going to take any more interventions, I am afraid.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland has ably demonstrated, this is a fascinating subject, and it will continue to exercise many minds and much passion.   In fact, no more serious subject could be debated here, and I commend him for bringing it to our attention, for debating it in a very open and, dare I say, friendly way, and for giving one of the best speeches I have heard from the Back Benches this Parliament in terms of the thoroughness with which he presented his material and the passion with which he stated his arguments.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.